Discussion:
Healthy computing.
http://www.thepurplegenie.com/healthycomputing.htm
This paper was taken from the site:
http://www.backshop.nl/uk_new/main_peper_uk.php
Discomfort during and after computing among college students appears remarkably high for the short amount of time they work at the computer. Almost every student reported discomfort--only 3 reported none. When responses of the discomfort intensity are grouped into thirds (low, medium or high), more than 44 % of the respondents reported a high intensity of neck and shoulder discomfort. The major correlation in the survey is between the symptom areas (e.g., neck and shoulder discomfort is correlated with back discomfort).
Discomfort occurred despite the fact that 81% of the respondents reported doing something to feel better. Many reported doing interventions which are universally recommended (e.g., breaks, stretching or posture changes); none reported doing a system’s approach for prevention nor taking frequent micro-breaks (every 30-60 seconds). Consequently, they continued to work at the computer with covert increased sympathetic arousal and low level muscle tension (Peper et al, 1994; Peper, Harvey and Shumay, 1997).
We speculate that students did something only after experiencing discomfort. At that point they were attempting to remediate pain rather than prevent it. Hence, they did not change their work style patterns which contributed to the etiology of discomfort. When people work they are usually focused on the task and unaware of increased sympathetic arousal as indicated by low level muscle tension, increased breathing rate, and decreased peripheral temperature (Schleifer and Ley, 1994; Peper, 1994). This postulated lack of awareness matches the observations that, when keyboard placement was altered, there was no significant correlation between muscle tension and subjective awareness of muscle tension (Shumay, Peper and Tibbetts, 1995).
Similarly, interpreters for the deaf were usually unaware of the drastic increase in respiration rate and decrease in peripheral hand temperature during interpreting (Peper et al, 1997).
The non-significant correlation between hours of computer use and discomfort reinforces the hypothesis that the etiology of computer related disorders (repetitive motion injury) is multi-causal. Factors such as ergonomics, somatic awareness, strength and flexibility, stress and work style contribute to discomfort. The majority of the respondents reported that their computer work setting lacked optimum ergonomics. Many worked under extreme time pressure to finish papers. Hence, working even a short time at the computer, especially if one is under stress, increases the risk of discomfort.
This disturbing high incidence of discomfort, despite students’s reports of interventions, suggests that they need to actively participate in prevention programs to maintain health. They should be taught similar skills as are taught to individuals in the workforce to prevent RMI while working at the computer. When such employees are trained in an active prevention program, such as the Healthy Computing Program at San Francisco State University, their symptoms are significantly reduced. This six session training program includes biofeedback, somatic awareness, work-style, stress management, strengthening, and ergonomics. Symptoms remain low a year later as measured by a telephone interview (Shumay and Peper, 1997).
Similarly, when employees receive weekly Healthy Computing Email Tips as part of the Healthy Computing Program they report a reduction of symptoms (Peper and Gibney, 1997).
This survey data suggests that students should shift from remediation to prevention. Most important is learning awareness and work style skills that actually prevent discomfort from occurring.
Learning how to stay healthy at the computer should be the first step when they are introduced to computers. This training should be an integral part of every computer class -- from grade school to university. Armed with this training, students can enter the work force with the skills to prevent computer related injuries, and avoid the painful consequences of developing RMI.
References:
Peper, E. and Gibney, K. H. (1997). Computer solutions to computer pain: How to stay healthy at the computer with email tips.Ô BMUG Fall ’97 Newsletter. XIII (2), -175. Berkeley: Peachpit Press. 174-175.
Peper, E. , Gibney, K.H., Giere, L. and Keller, L. (1997). Proceedings of the 1997 meeting of the International Society for the Advancement for Respiratory Psychophysiology. Falmouth, MA.
Peper, E., Harvey, R., and Shumay, D. (1997). How to use applied psychophysiology/biofeedback in the prevention and assessment of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. In: Salvendy, G., Smith, M. J. and Koubek, R.J. (eds). Design of Computing Systems: Cognitive Considerations. New York: Elsevier, 551-554.
Peper, E., Wilson, V.S., Taylor, W., Pierce, A., Bender, K., & Tibbetts, V. (1994). Repetitive Strain Injury. Prevent computer user injury with biofeedback: Assessment and training protocol. Physical Therapy Products. 5(5), 17-22.
Schleifer, L. M. & Ley, R. (1994). End-tidal PCO2 as an index of psychophysiological activity during VDT data-entry work and relaxation. Ergonomics. 37 (2), 245-254.
Shumay, D. and Peper, E. (1997). Healthy Computing: A comprehensive group training approach using biofeedback. In: Salvendy, G., Smith, M. J. and Koubek, R.J. (eds). Design of Computing Systems: Cognitive Considerations. New York: Elsevier, 555-558.
Shumay, D.M., Peper, E., & Tibbetts, V. (1995). Lack of muscle awareness at the workstation: Implications for repetitive strain injury. Fifth International Conference on Stress Management Book of Abstracts. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 128.
©Prof. Erik Peper Ph. D – San Francisco State University
Copyright © 2004 Backshop bvall rights reserved
Healthy computing.
http://www.thepurplegenie.com/healthycomputing.htm
http://www.thepurplegenie.com/healthycomputing.htm
This paper was taken from the site:
http://www.backshop.nl/uk_new/main_peper_uk.php
Discomfort during and after computing among college students appears remarkably high for the short amount of time they work at the computer. Almost every student reported discomfort--only 3 reported none. When responses of the discomfort intensity are grouped into thirds (low, medium or high), more than 44 % of the respondents reported a high intensity of neck and shoulder discomfort. The major correlation in the survey is between the symptom areas (e.g., neck and shoulder discomfort is correlated with back discomfort).
Discomfort occurred despite the fact that 81% of the respondents reported doing something to feel better. Many reported doing interventions which are universally recommended (e.g., breaks, stretching or posture changes); none reported doing a system’s approach for prevention nor taking frequent micro-breaks (every 30-60 seconds). Consequently, they continued to work at the computer with covert increased sympathetic arousal and low level muscle tension (Peper et al, 1994; Peper, Harvey and Shumay, 1997).
We speculate that students did something only after experiencing discomfort. At that point they were attempting to remediate pain rather than prevent it. Hence, they did not change their work style patterns which contributed to the etiology of discomfort. When people work they are usually focused on the task and unaware of increased sympathetic arousal as indicated by low level muscle tension, increased breathing rate, and decreased peripheral temperature (Schleifer and Ley, 1994; Peper, 1994). This postulated lack of awareness matches the observations that, when keyboard placement was altered, there was no significant correlation between muscle tension and subjective awareness of muscle tension (Shumay, Peper and Tibbetts, 1995).
Similarly, interpreters for the deaf were usually unaware of the drastic increase in respiration rate and decrease in peripheral hand temperature during interpreting (Peper et al, 1997).
The non-significant correlation between hours of computer use and discomfort reinforces the hypothesis that the etiology of computer related disorders (repetitive motion injury) is multi-causal. Factors such as ergonomics, somatic awareness, strength and flexibility, stress and work style contribute to discomfort. The majority of the respondents reported that their computer work setting lacked optimum ergonomics. Many worked under extreme time pressure to finish papers. Hence, working even a short time at the computer, especially if one is under stress, increases the risk of discomfort.
This disturbing high incidence of discomfort, despite students’s reports of interventions, suggests that they need to actively participate in prevention programs to maintain health. They should be taught similar skills as are taught to individuals in the workforce to prevent RMI while working at the computer. When such employees are trained in an active prevention program, such as the Healthy Computing Program at San Francisco State University, their symptoms are significantly reduced. This six session training program includes biofeedback, somatic awareness, work-style, stress management, strengthening, and ergonomics. Symptoms remain low a year later as measured by a telephone interview (Shumay and Peper, 1997).
Similarly, when employees receive weekly Healthy Computing Email Tips as part of the Healthy Computing Program they report a reduction of symptoms (Peper and Gibney, 1997).
This survey data suggests that students should shift from remediation to prevention. Most important is learning awareness and work style skills that actually prevent discomfort from occurring.
Learning how to stay healthy at the computer should be the first step when they are introduced to computers. This training should be an integral part of every computer class -- from grade school to university. Armed with this training, students can enter the work force with the skills to prevent computer related injuries, and avoid the painful consequences of developing RMI.
References:
Peper, E. and Gibney, K. H. (1997). Computer solutions to computer pain: How to stay healthy at the computer with email tips.Ô BMUG Fall ’97 Newsletter. XIII (2), -175. Berkeley: Peachpit Press. 174-175.
Peper, E. , Gibney, K.H., Giere, L. and Keller, L. (1997). Proceedings of the 1997 meeting of the International Society for the Advancement for Respiratory Psychophysiology. Falmouth, MA.
Peper, E., Harvey, R., and Shumay, D. (1997). How to use applied psychophysiology/biofeedback in the prevention and assessment of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. In: Salvendy, G., Smith, M. J. and Koubek, R.J. (eds). Design of Computing Systems: Cognitive Considerations. New York: Elsevier, 551-554.
Peper, E., Wilson, V.S., Taylor, W., Pierce, A., Bender, K., & Tibbetts, V. (1994). Repetitive Strain Injury. Prevent computer user injury with biofeedback: Assessment and training protocol. Physical Therapy Products. 5(5), 17-22.
Schleifer, L. M. & Ley, R. (1994). End-tidal PCO2 as an index of psychophysiological activity during VDT data-entry work and relaxation. Ergonomics. 37 (2), 245-254.
Shumay, D. and Peper, E. (1997). Healthy Computing: A comprehensive group training approach using biofeedback. In: Salvendy, G., Smith, M. J. and Koubek, R.J. (eds). Design of Computing Systems: Cognitive Considerations. New York: Elsevier, 555-558.
Shumay, D.M., Peper, E., & Tibbetts, V. (1995). Lack of muscle awareness at the workstation: Implications for repetitive strain injury. Fifth International Conference on Stress Management Book of Abstracts. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 128.
©Prof. Erik Peper Ph. D – San Francisco State University
Copyright © 2004 Backshop bvall rights reserved
Healthy computing.
http://www.thepurplegenie.com/healthycomputing.htm
posted by Victor at 7:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home