Advertisement

Finding the Right Way for Interrupting People Improving Their Sitting Posture

  • Michael Haller
  • Christoph Richter
  • Peter Brandl
  • Sabine Gross
  • Gerold Schossleitner
  • Andreas Schrempf
  • Hideaki Nii
  • Maki Sugimoto
  • Masahiko Inami
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6947)

Abstract

In this paper, we present three different ways of interrupting people to posture guidance. We developed an ergonomically adjustable office chair equipped with four sensors measuring the office worker’s posture. It is important that users do some training after bad posture and be alerted of this; therefore, we implemented three different alert modalities (Graphical Feedback, Physical Feedback, and Vibrotactile Feedback), with the goal to find out which of the techniques is the most effective interruption modality without causing a huge disruption effect. To measure the task-performance, we conducted a formal user study. Our user study results show there are different effects on performance and disruptiveness caused by the three interruption techniques. While the vibrotactile feedback might have higher information awareness benefits at the beginning, it causes a huge intrusion side-effect. Thus, the physical feedback was rated less disruptive to the workflow as the other two feedback modalities.

Keywords

Posture Care Interrupts Physical Feedback Graphical Feedback Vibrotactile Feedback 

Supplementary material

Electronic Supplementary material (16,804 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Adamczyk, P.D., Bailey, B.P.: If not now, when? The effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In: Proceedings of CHI 2004, pp. 271–278. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arroyo, E., Selker, T.: Arbitrating multimodal outputs: Using ambient displays as interruptions. In: Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice (Part II) - Proceedings of HCI International 2003, vol. 2, pp. 591–595 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arroyo, E., Selker, T., Stouffs, A.: Interruptions as Multimodal Outputs: Which are the Less Disruptive? In: IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, p. 479 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, B.P., Konstan, J.A., Carlis, J.V.: The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In: INTERACT, pp. 593–601 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailey, B.P., Konstan, J.A., Carlis, J.V.: Adjusting windows: Balancing information awareness with intrusion. In: Kortum, P., Kunzinger, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Human Factors and the Web: Doing Business on the Web, Austin, TX (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beach, T.A., Parkinson, R.J., Stothart, J.P., Callaghan, J.P.: Effects of prolonged sitting on the passive flexion stiffness of the in vivo lumbar spine. Spine J. 5, 145–154 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E., Horvitz, E.: Instant Messaging: Effects of Relevance and Timing. In: People and Computers XIV: Proceedings of HCI 2000, pp. 71–76 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., Wilhite, S.: A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In: Proceedings CHI 2004, pp. 175–182. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daian, I., van Ruiten, A.M., Visser, A., Zubic, S.: Sensitive chair: a force sensing chair with multimodal real-time feedback via agent. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Invent! Explore!, vol. 250, pp. 163–166. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ertel, M., Junghanns, G., Pech, E., Ullsperger, P.: Effects of VDU-assisted work on health and well-being. Research Report 762, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BAuA (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of a NASA-TLX (Task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, pp. 139–183 (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horvitz, E., Apacible, J.: Learning and reasoning about interruption. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 20–27. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iqbal, S.T., Bailey, B.P.: Effects of intelligent notification management on users and their tasks. In: Proceeding of CHI 2008, pp. 93–102. ACM, NY (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iqbal, S.T., Horvitz, E.: Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions. In: Proceedings of CHI 2007, pp. 677–686. ACM, NY (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kingma, I., van Dieen, J.H.: Static and dynamic postural loadings during computer work in females: Sitting on an office chair versus sitting on an exercise ball. Applied Ergonomics 40(2), 199–205 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lieberman, H.: Autonomous interface agents. In: Proceedings of CHI 1997, pp. 67–74. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McFarlane, D.: Coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of Interact 1999, pp. 295–303 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pfendler, C.: Vergleichende Bewertung der NASA-TLX-Skala bei der Erfassung von Lernprozessen. Forschungsinstitut für Anthropotechnik, Wachtberg, Bericht No. 2 (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rivera, D.: The effect of content customization on learnability and perceived workload. In: Proceedings of CHI 2005, pp. 1749–1752. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salvucci, D.D., Bogunovich, P.: Multitasking and monotasking: the effects of mental workload on deferred task interruptions. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, pp. 85–88. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Harper Collins, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zheng, Z., Morrell, J.B.: A vibrotactile feedback approach to posture guidance. In: 2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium, pp. 351–358.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Haller
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christoph Richter
    • 1
  • Peter Brandl
    • 1
  • Sabine Gross
    • 1
  • Gerold Schossleitner
    • 2
  • Andreas Schrempf
    • 2
  • Hideaki Nii
    • 3
  • Maki Sugimoto
    • 3
  • Masahiko Inami
    • 3
  1. 1.Media Interaction LabUpper Austria University of Applied SciencesAustria
  2. 2.Medical TechnologyUpper Austria University of Applied SciencesAustria
  3. 3.Keio-NUS Cute CenterSingapore/Japan

Personalised recommendations