Advertisement

An Ergonomic User Interface Design for a New Extremity MRI Focusing on the Patient Chair

  • Eui S. Jung
  • Kimin Ban
  • Jinyoung Kim
  • Jiwon Ahn
  • Sangkyun Na
  • Jinho Yim
  • Kyungjin Oh
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

Ergonomic design guidelines for the new development of an extremity MRI have been developed to minimize patient’s postural discomfort on different scanning types with a specific focus given to the patient chair and leg supporter. The research started with a known zero gravity position as an optimal body posture and did a market survey on various industrial chairs. Based on the anthropometric characteristics of the populations being considered, the comfortable ranges of the dimensions and angles were defined for four scanning types: knee, ankle, elbow and wrist scannings. In order to validate these guidelines, a simple mockup was made and tested for a group of participants. The test was to find out 3-dimensional comfortable postures of 14 participants with respect to the scanning type and scanning duration, which subsequently yielded design dimensions and adjustable ranges of angles for MRI bore and exterior, chair and leg supporter.

Keywords

Extremity MRI Chair design guidelines Patient postural discomfort 

References

  1. 1.
    Mival O, Benyon D (2015) User Experience (UX) design for medical personnel and patients. In: Requirements engineering for digital health, pp 117–131. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Privitera MB, Murray DL (September 2009) Applied ergonomics: determining user needs in medical device design. In: Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, EMBC 2009, pp 5606–5608. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schiff MH, Hobbs KF, Gensler T, Keenan GF (2007) A retrospective analysis of low-field strength magnetic resonance imaging and the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Med Res Opin 23(5):961–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steinberg EP (1986) The status of MRI in 1986: rates of adoption in the United States and worldwide. Am J Roentgenol 147(3):453–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung M, Dahabreh IJ, Hadar N, Ratichek SJ, Gaylor JM, Trikalinos TA, Lau J (2011) Emerging MRI technologies for imaging musculoskeletal disorders under loading stressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meléndez JC, McCrank E (1993) Anxiety-related reactions associated with magnetic resonance imaging examinations. JAMA 270(6):745–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindegaard HM, Vallø J, Hørslev-Petersen K, Junker P, Østergaard M (2006) Low-cost, low-field dedicated extremity magnetic resonance imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Rheum Dis 65(9):1208–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Extremity-only MRI (2013) Health Services Research (HSR). Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, BelgianGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sharp JT (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatologic practice: low field or standard. J Rheumatol 33(10):1925–1927Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffin BN, Lewin JL, Louviere AJ (1978) The influence of zero-G and acceleration on the human factors of spacecraft design. JSC-14581, NASA-JSCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eui S. Jung
    • 1
  • Kimin Ban
    • 1
  • Jinyoung Kim
    • 1
  • Jiwon Ahn
    • 1
  • Sangkyun Na
    • 1
  • Jinho Yim
    • 2
  • Kyungjin Oh
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Industrial and Management EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Samsung ElectronicsSuwonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations