There is a lack of information about the optimal setup of multiple screen configurations in virtual reality (VR) office work.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of different screen configurations on neck flexion, rotation, neck muscle activity, and simulator sickness symptoms during Virtual Reality (VR) office work.
METHODS:
Twelve participants (7 males; 21 to 27 years old) performed copy-paste and drag-drop tasks in three different screen configurations (single screen, primary-secondary screen, and double screen) in a randomized order. Optical motion capture system, electromyography (EMG) device, and simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) were used to measure the users’ responses.
RESULTS:
Neck rotation angles, muscle activities, and VR sickness were significantly affected by the screen configurations (p < 0.021). The primary-secondary screen showed the highest right rotation angle (median: -33.47°) and left sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle activities (median: 12.57% MVC). Both single (median: 22.42) and primary-secondary (median: 22.40) screen showed the highest value of SSQ.
CONCLUSIONS:
The screen configurations in VR could be an important design factor affecting the users’ physical demands of the neck and VR sickness symptoms. Asymmetric neck rotations caused by the primary-secondary screen conditions should be avoided.
WhitmanLE, JorgensenM, HathiyariK, MalzahnD Virtual reality: its usefulness for ergonomic analysis. Proc. 2004 Winter Simul. Conf. 2004, vol. 2, IEEE; 2004, p. 1740–5.
2.
PenumudiSA, KuppamVA, KimJH, HwangJ. The effects of target location on musculoskeletal load, task performance, and subjective discomfort during virtual reality interactions. Appl Ergon. 2020;84:103010.
3.
KiaK, IshakH, HwangJ, KimJ
The Effects of Target Sizes on Biomechanical Exposures and Perceived Workload duringVirtual and Augmented Reality Interactions. Proc. Hum.Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., vol. 64, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 2020, p. 2107–2107.
4.
PenumudiSA, KuppamVA, KimJH, HwangJBiomechanical Exposures in the Neck and Shoulders during Virtual Reality Interactions 2019.
5.
Rojas-Sánchez MA, Palos-SánchezPR, Folgado-Fernández JA. Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and education. Educ Inf Technol. 2023;28:155–92.
6.
ChiossiF, TurgutY, WelschR, MayerSAdapting Visual Complexity Based on Electrodermal Activity Improves Working Memory Performance in Virtual Reality, Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact 2023;7.
7.
BienerV, GessleinT, SchneiderD, KawalaF, OtteA, KristenssonPO, et al.
Povrpoint: Authoring presentations in mobile virtual reality. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph.. 2022;28:2069–79.
8.
D’heerE, CourtoisC, PaulussenS Everyday life in (front of) the screen: The consumption of multiple screen technologies in the living room context. Proc. 10th Eur. Conf.Interact. Tv Video, 2012, p. 195–8.
9.
BienerV, SchneiderD, GessleinT, OtteA, KuthB, KristenssonPO, et al.
Breaking the screen: Interaction across touchscreen boundaries in virtual reality for mobile knowledge workers. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2020;26:3490–502.
10.
LinY-J, WangH. Using virtual reality to facilitate learners’ creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in an EFL classroom. Educ Inf Technol. 2021;26:4487–505.
11.
Rospigliosi ‘asher’P. Metaverse or Simulacra? Roblox, Minecraft, Meta and the turn to virtual reality for education, socialisation and work. Interact Learn Environ. 2022;30:1–3.
12.
BurrussCC, BjornsenE, GallagherKMExamining Potential User Experience Trade-Offs Between Common Computer Display Configurations. Hum Factors. 2021:00187208211018344.
13.
ChangE, KimHT, YooB. Virtual reality sickness: a review of causes and measurements. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2020;36:1658–82.
14.
ANSI/HFES 100. ANSI/HFES 100-2007. (2007). Human factors engineering of computer workstations. 2007.
15.
StrakerL, MathiassenSE. Increased physical work loads in modern work-a necessity for better health and performance?Ergonomics. 2009;52:1215–25.
16.
StrakerL, Burgess-LimerickR, PollockC, MurrayK, NettoK, ColemanJ,et al.
The impact of computer display height and desk design on 3D posture during information technology work by young adults. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18:336–49.
17.
KazemiR, LeeSC Human Factors/Ergonomics (HFE) Evaluation in the Virtual Reality Environment: A Systematic Review. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2023:1–17.
18.
HwangJ, AriH, MatooM, ChenJ, KimJH. Air-assisted devices reduce biomechanical loading in the low back and upper extremities during patient turning tasks. Appl Ergon. 2020;87:103121.
19.
HwangJ, KuppamVA, ChodrajuSSR, ChenJ, KimJH Commercially Available Friction-Reducing Patient-Transfer Devices Reduce Biomechanical Stresses on Caregivers’ Upper Extremities and LowBack. Hum Factors. 2019:0018720819827208.
20.
HermensHJ, FreriksB, MerlettiR, StegemanD, BlokJ, RauG, et al.,
European recommendations for surface electromyography. Roessingh Res Dev. 1999;8:13–54.
21.
BoettcherCE, GinnKA, CathersI. Standard maximum isometric voluntary contraction tests for normalizing shoulder muscle EMG. J Orthop Res. 2008;26:1591–7.
22.
KimJH, AriH, MadasuC, HwangJ. Evaluation of the biomechanical stress in the neck and shoulders during augmented reality interactions. Appl Ergon. 2020;88:103175.
23.
IversenVM, VasseljenO, MorkPJ, FimlandMSResistance training vs general physical exercise in multidisciplinary rehabilitation of chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial 2018.
24.
KennedyRS, LaneNE, BerbaumKS, LilienthalMG. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1993;3:203–20.
25.
HowarthPA, CostelloPJ. The occurrence of virtual simulation sickness symptoms when an HMD was used as a personal viewing system. Displays. 1997;18:107–16.
26.
BimbergP, WeisskerT, KulikAOn the usage of the simulator sickness questionnaire for virtual reality research.2020 IEEE Conf. Virtual Real. 3D User Interfaces Abstr.Workshop VRW, IEEE; 2020, p. 464–7.
27.
SyamalaKR, AilneniRC, KimJH, HwangJ. Armrests and back support reduced biomechanical loading in the neck and upper extremities during mobile phone use. Appl Ergon. 2018;73:48–54.
28.
JonssonB. Measurement and evaluation of local muscular strain in the shoulder during constrained work. J Hum Ergol (Tokyo). 1982;11:73–88.
29.
CookC, HegedusE, ShowalterC, SizerPSJr. Coupling behavior of the cervical spine: a systematic review of the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006;29:570–5.
30.
GoostreyS, TreleavenJ, JohnstonV. Evaluation of document location during computer use in terms of neck muscle activity and neck movement. Appl Ergon. 2014;45:767–72.
31.
KimE, ShinG. User discomfort while using a virtual reality headset as a personal viewing system for text-intensive office tasks. Ergonomics. 2021;64:891–9.
32.
SouchetAD, LourdeauxD, PaganiA, RebenitschL. A narrative review of immersive virtual reality’s ergonomics and risks at the workplace: cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscular fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. Virtual Real. 2023;27:19–50.
33.
HwangJ, KnapikGG, DufourJS, AurandA, BestTM, KhanSN,et al.
A biologically-assisted curved muscle model of the lumbar spine: Model structure. Clin Biomech. 2016;37:53–9.
34.
HwangJ, KnapikGG, DufourJS, BestTM, KhanSN, MendelE,et al.
A biologically-assisted curved muscle model of the lumbar spine: Model validation. Clin Biomech. 2016;37:153–9.
35.
BexanderCS, MellorR, HodgesPW. Effect of gaze direction on neck muscle activity during cervical rotation. Exp Brain Res. 2005;167:422–32.
36.
KeshavarzB, HechtH. Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Hum Factors. 2011;53:415–26.
