Evaluating the utility of two gestural discomfort evaluation methods.
Minseok Son, Jaemoon Jung, Woojin Park
PLoS ONE · 2017
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176123 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
Evaluating physical discomfort of designed gestures is important for creating safe and usable gesture-based interaction systems; yet, gestural discomfort evaluation has not been extensively studied in HCI, and few evaluation methods seem currently available whose utility has been experimentally confirmed. To address this, this study empirically demonstrated the utility of the subjective rating method after a small number of gesture repetitions (a maximum of four repetitions) in evaluating designed gestures in terms of physical discomfort resulting from prolonged, repetitive gesture use. The subjective rating method has been widely used in previous gesture studies but without empirical evidence on its utility. This study also proposed a gesture discomfort evaluation method based on an existing ergonomics posture evaluation tool (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) and demonstrated its utility in evaluating designed gestures in terms of physical discomfort resulting from prolonged, repetitive gesture use. Rapid Upper Limb Assessment is an ergonomics postural analysis tool that quantifies the work-related musculoskeletal disorders risks for manual tasks, and has been hypothesized to be capable of correctly determining discomfort resulting from prolonged, repetitive gesture use. The two methods were evaluated through comparisons against a baseline method involving discomfort rating after actual prolonged, repetitive gesture use. Correlation analyses indicated that both methods were in good agreement with the baseline. The methods proposed in this study seem useful for predicting discomfort resulting from prolonged, repetitive gesture use, and are expected to help interaction designers create safe and usable gesture-based interaction systems.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.