Biomechanics and performance when using a standard and a vertical computer mouse

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cab a2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20130032702</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20131008170709.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">131008e20130805esp|||p      |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">875</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20130013961</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Quemelo, Paulo R.V.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Biomechanics and performance when using a standard and a vertical computer mouse</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Paulo R.V. Quemeloa, Edgar Ramos Vieira</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Objective: to compare the biomechanics and performance while using a vertical computer mouse (VM) and a standard mouse (SM). Methods: muscle activation (electromyography), forearm movements (electrogoniometers), performance (Fitts' Law test) and satisfaction (questionnaire) of 16 subjects were evaluated. Results: there were significant differences between the VM and the SM, respectively, on motion (28° vs. 42° pronation, p = 0.001; 5° ulnar vs. 7° radial deviation, p = 0.016) and muscle activity (13% vs. 16% of extensor carpi activity, p = 0.006; 10% vs. 13% extensor digitorum activity, p = 0.001). VM user satisfaction was good (68); however, time to target was longer (4.2 vs. 3.4 s, p <  0.001). Conclusions: using the VM decreased wrist pronation and lowered wrist extensor muscle activity, but additional training and familiarisation time may be required to improve user performance.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20100019818</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">Ergonomics : the international journal of research and practice in human factors and ergonomics</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">Oxon [United Kingdom] : Taylor & Francis, 2010-</subfield>
      <subfield code="x">0014-0139</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">05/08/2013 Volumen 56 Número 8 - agosto 2013 , p. 1336-1344</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>