Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 1451

A comparison of upper body kinematics and muscle activation between

sit and stand computer workstation configuration
Michael Y. Lin1, Michelle Robertson2, Ana Barbir3, Marvin Dainoff2, Sohit Karol2, Jennifer B. Garza4,
Jack T. Dennerlein1,3
1
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 2Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton,
MA.3Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 4The University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT,

Abstract— Very few studies considered the movement constraints imposed by the computer workstation
during office computer work. The impact of computer workstation on user’s muscle and joint coordination
is not yet understood. This study examined three workstation configurations (sitting and standing with
elbow desk height, and sitting with elevated desk) and analyzed their corresponding posture, muscle effort
and inter-joint and muscle coordination. We found that sitting computer workstation with an elevated desk
associated with more non-neutral postures and increased muscle load, particularly on the shoulders.
Properly set up sitting and standing workstations resulted in similar median values for postures and muscle
loads, but standing workstation allowed for greater muscle dynamic ranges and could be beneficial for
short duration mouse tasks. Identifying effects of non-optimal configurations can lead to interventions to
help decrease risks of developing musculoskeletal disorders.

I. INTRODUCTION
Musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders (MSDs) are a
common source of workplace disability, particularly among
office workers with prolonged computer work in developed
countries (Smith, 1999). These office workers often work in
computer intensive workplaces that are typically characterized
as sedentary environments as workers may experience up to 6
hours of sitting over a day excluding additional hours spent at
home and/or during other off-work activities (Brown, 2003).
Recently, standing workstations are experiencing increased
popularity as an intervention for prolonged seated office work.
However, with static postures, both workstations can be
problematic as prolonged sitting is found to associate with
Copyright 2014 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931214581303
In addition to biomechanical loads, some studies in physical
ergonomics have investigated the effect of work area design
and posture on motor control (Laursen, 2002; Waersted,
1996). However, the effects of computer workstation
configurations on motor performance along with joint
movement variability are not well documented. In current
study, the central hypothesis is that mouse work under
different computer workstation setup may affect both the
motor performance of users and their corresponding upper
extremity biomechanics. Particularly for biomechanical loads,
the magnitude and dynamic range of upper extremity postures
and muscle activities are expected to differ between standing
and sitting workstation. An additional goal of this study is to
investigate the effects of improper setup on user’s postures

biomechanical risk factors while prolonged standing is and muscle load.

associated with physiological risk factors (Taillefer, 2011).
Therefore, variability in tasks and workstation postures may
be an important factor in increasing blood flow and reducing
MSD risks (Aptel, 2008).
To date, there is a general lack of understanding of how a
sitting or a standing or an improper set-up computer
workstation can interact differently with the user.
Seated computer workstation set-up has been shown to affect
upper extremity biomechanics including the wrist, hand,
elbow, shoulder and neck (Dennerlein, 2007). With the
removal of the task chair for a standing workstation, users are
expected to seek supports of forearms elsewhere and shift their
center of mass more frequently and create greater muscle load
and postural variability than a sitting workstation. As previous
studies have shown, non-neutral postures and sustained
muscle load are major risk factors of MSDs development.
Understanding how computer workstation design, specifically
in regard to desk and chair setup, affects user’s biomechanical
loads (both static and dynamic) may be a key step to
identifying advantages of different designs and further avoid
MSDs.
II. METHODS
To test our hypothesis, a full factorial study design was
utilized to test three workstation configurations, including a
sitting workstation with elbow desk height (SiW), a sitting
workstation with elevated desk height at 4 inches above elbow
height (SiWE), and a standing workstation with elbow desk
height (StW). Six healthy right-handed female participants
(age between 20 and 30) with no history of neck or upper
extremity musculoskeletal injuries volunteered and provided
written informed consent for this repeated measure laboratory
study. The mean anthropometric measures for the participants
were typical of the average United States female population.
Harvard School of Public Health Office of Regulatory Affairs
and Research Compliance approved all protocols and
informed consent forms. All participants completed the full
study protocol with three computer workstations doing three
Fitts law clicking tasks for each workstation while having their
posture and muscle activity recorded real time continuously.
The magnitude (defined as the median of the normalized data)
and the dynamic range (defined as 90%ile - 10%ile) of user’s

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 1452

posture and muscle effort data were compared across the three
workstations. Motor performance was assessed using the Fitts
law clicking test. All study data were analyzed using Repeated
Measure Multivariate Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA).
Cut-off significance level was set at 0.05. For significant main
effects shown in the tables provided, Tukey’s Post-Hoc was
used to perform group-wise comparisons; where groupings are
provided as superscripts in all the tables (group A values are
statistically significantly greater than group B, group B greater
than group C).
A. Muscle Activity
rotation matrices were calculated to obtain the upper arm
orientation relative to the torso, the forearm relative to the
upper arm, and the hand/wrist orientation relative to the
forearm. With these local rotation matrices, Euler angles for
all body segments of interest were calculated to describe
flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, and rotation (internal
or external) of the right shoulder, elbow, and wrist (Asundi et
al., 2010, Asundi et al., 2012, Winter, 2005).
C. Motor performance

Surface electromyography (EMG) electrodes (DE-2.1 Single A series of Fitts law computer mouse lateral (across the body)
Differential Electrode; Delsys, Boston, Massachusetts, USA) clicking tasks (3 levels of difficulty with inter-target distance
measured muscle activity for middle trapezius, medial deltoid, of 310, 370 and 490 pixels for 100 clicks) was incorporated to
biceps, triceps, extensor carpi radialis, extensor carpi ulnaris evaluate user motor performance. The inter-target distances
and extensor digitorum. Electrode placement on the muscles were chosen at random during study design stage to generate
was achieved through palpation and validated through EMG three distinct levels of index of difficulty in order to calculate
signal response to corresponding muscle contraction exercises. the Fitts’ Law index of performance. The mouse clicking task
After amplification, EMG signals were recorded at a movement time across three levels of index of difficulties
frequency of 1000 Hz, rectified, and smoothed using a 3 Hz (calculated using width and distance of the two targets) were
low pass filter. In order to normalize the signals for interested plotted to obtain the slope and further converted into the index
muscles, three 3-second isometric maximum voluntary of performance using the reciprocal of the slope. All data
contractions (MVC) were collected for each muscle with manipulations were done in Matlab (MATLAB 2011a,
corresponding exercises. All participants were coached to Mathworks, Massachusetts, USA) based on the Shannon
gradually ramp up to reach an MVC by the experimenter formulation (Fitts, 1954). The total duration for each condition
while the experimenter resisted participants’ force exertions was less than ten minutes for all three Fitts law clicking tasks
using up to their entire bodyweight. Participants were given 2 and two minute breaks were provided after each trial to avoid
minutes between the same muscle contraction and the fatigue carryover.
maximum signal obtained was used as the MVC reference.
Based on these references, normalization of EMG was D. User Perception
calculated by percent MVC of each muscle.
All participants responded to two survey questions about
B. Posture overall upper extremity discomfort and task difficulty after
completing all fitts law tapping tasks for each workstation.
An optical three-dimensional motion analysis system The responses were marked on a 10-cm visual analogue scale
(Optotrak Certus, Northern Digital, Ontario, Canada) recorded (VAS) with 0 being the lowest level of discomfort/difficulty
hand and upper limb posture. Infrared light-emitting diodes and 10 being the highest.
(IRLEDs) were mounted on each fingertip and proximal
interphalangeal joint (PIP) of the participant’s right hand. A III. RESULTS
rigid body cluster consisting of three IRLEDs attached to a
metal structure was attached to the back (dorsal) side of the A. Muscle Activity
hand over the 3rd metacarpal bone between the wrist and
knuckle. Three additional rigid bodies were attached to the The standing workstation had significantly higher muscle
forearm, upper arm, and chest. Locations of bony landmarks activity dynamic range (Table 1) for medial deltoid and
(right and left acromion, sternal notch, lateral and medial extensor carpi radialis muscles compared to the sitting
epicondyle of the right elbow, radial and ulnar styloid of the workstation at elbow desk height.
right wrist, metacarpophalangeal joints for digits II-IV of the
right hand) were palpated, digitized and tracked according to TABLE 1. ACROSS PARTICIPANT ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS (S.D.)
MUSCLE EFFORT DYNAMIC RANGE (%MVC), WHERE GROUP A>B>C.
their corresponding body segment IRLED cluster. Location
data for each IRLED and digitized point were subsequently Work Station Setup
Muscle
filtered through a low-pass, fourth-order Butterworth filter P-Value SiW SiWE StW
with a 10 Hz cutoff frequency and used to define local Middle Trapizius 0.02 2.0(0.3) AB
2.9(0.6)A
1.5(0.3) B
coordinate systems for each segment (Asundi et al., 2010,
Medial Deltoid 0.04 0.3(0.1)B 0.5(0.1)A 0.5(0.1)A
Asundi et al., 2012, Winter, 2005).
Using the anatomical position and the vertical as reference, Biceps 0.07 0.2(0.1) 0.2(0.1) 0.2(0.1)
joint angles were defined by the rotation matrices describing Triceps 0.35 0.9(0.1) 0.9(0.1) 1.1(0.2)
the orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal Extensor AB B
segment. Specifically, from the local coordinate systems, 0.032 2.7(0.2) 2.5(0.1) 3.0(0.3)A
Digitorum
Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 1453

Work Station Setup TABLE 3. ACROSS PARTICIPANT ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS (S.D) OF
Muscle MEDIAN LEVEL POSTURE COMPARED TO THE ERGONOMIC REFERENCE POSTURE
P-Value SiW SiWE StW (ANGLE °), WHERE GROUP A>B>C.
Extensor Carpi
0.23 5.3(0.6) 5.4(0.5) 6.5(0.7) Work Station Setup
Ulnaris
Movement
Extensor Carpi B B A P-Value SiW SiWE StW
0.02 5.1(0.6) 5.1(0.6) 5.8(0.7)
Radialis Shoulder
12.3(1.0) 6.5(1.0)B
B A
0.0029 6.7(1.0)
Abduction
The sitting workstation with elevated desk height had smaller Shoulder
<0.0001 26.5(1.5)B 33.5(1.5)A 11.3(1.5)C
dynamic ranges for extensor digitorum and extensor carpi Flexion
Shoulder
radialis as the elbow-desk-height sitting workstation, but a External 0.033 -3.8(1.8)AB 1.1(1.8)A -7.4(1.8)B
greater range for middle trapezius muscle compared to the Rotation
standing workstation. The sitting workstation with elevated Elbow
0.0101 21.6(1.9)A 22.1(1.9)A 12.7(1.9)B
desk height corresponded to significantly higher median Flexion
Forearm
middle trapezius and medial deltoid muscle efforts compared Supination
<0.0001 -1.2(1.3)B 7.1(1.3)A -2.4(1.3)B
to the sitting workstation with elbow desk height. For both Wrist
0.13 1.3(0.9) -1.3(0.9) 1.6(0.9)
desks set at elbow height, standing workstation had higher Adduction
median levels of muscle effort for medial deltoid, biceps and Wrist
Extension
<0.0001 29.1(0.9)A 20.1(0.9)B 30.5(0.9)A
triceps (Table 2).
TABLE 4. ACROSS PARTICIPANT ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS (S.D) OF
TABLE 2. ACROSS PARTICIPANT ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS (S.D.) POSTURE DYNAMIC RANGE (ANGLE °), WHERE GROUP A>B>C.
MUSCLE EFFORT AT MEDIAN LEVEL (%MVC), WHERE GROUP A>B>C.
Work Station Setup
Work Station Setup Movement
Muscle P-Value SiW SiWE StW
P-Value SiW SiWE StW
Shoulder Abduction 0.65 1.3(0.7) 1.8(0.7) 1.5(0.7)
Middle Trapizius 0.001 3.2(0.7)B 6.6(1.4)A 2.8(0.5)B
B A Shoulder Flexion 0.41 2.4(0.4) 2.5(0.4) 3.4(0.4)
Medial Deltoid 0.01 1.3(0.1) 1.7(0.1) 1.7(0.1)A
Shoulder
Biceps 0.0387 1.0(0.2)B 1.2(0.3)AB 1.3(0.3)A External Rotation
0.42 2.0(0.3) 2.6(0.3) 2.2(0.3)

Triceps 0.02 3.7(0.6) B

4.1(0.7)AB
4.5(0.9) A Elbow Flexion 0.58 3.0(0.4) 2.6(0.4) 3.4(0.4)

Extensor Digitorum 0.23 7.1(0.4) 6.8(0.2) 7.5(0.7) Forearm Supination 0.21 3.0(0.3) 2.2(0.3) 2.5(0.3)
Extensor Carpi Wrist Adduction 0.93 4.2(0.5) 4.2(0.5) 4.5(0.5)
0.83 7.6(0.6) 7.9(0.7) 7.9(0.6)
Ulnaris
A B
Extensor Carpi Wrist Extension 0.0075 3.9(0.2) 2.6(0.2) 3.7(0.2)A
0.79 10.6(1.1) 10.6(0.9) 11.0(0.9)
Radialis
C. Fitts Law Task Performance
B. Posture
The index of difficulty ranged from 2 to 4.5 in the current
The standing workstation at elbow height associated with the study. With both desks set up at elbow height, standing
lowest shoulder abduction and elbow flexion (Table 3). workstation associated with the greater Fitts Law task
Shoulder abduction, shoulder external rotation, forearm performance (8.1bits/s) compared to the sitting workstation
supination, wrist adduction and extension for the standing (6.5bits/s). Motor performance for the sitting workstation with
workstation were no different from the sitting workstation an elevated desk was not different with the other two (Table
with elbow desk height. While sitting, increases in shoulder 5). The overall mean and standard deviation across
abduction (+6 degrees), shoulder flexion (+7 degrees), and participants for the three workstations are also provided in
forearm supination (+7 degrees) were associated with the Table 6.
workstation with elevated desk. Both standing and sitting
workstation with desk at elbow height had greater dynamic TABLE 5. ACROSS PARTICIPANT ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS (S.D.)
range of wrist extension compared to the sitting workstation OF FITTS LAW TASK PERFORMANCE, WHERE GROUP A>B>C.
with elevated desk. Fitts Law Work Station Setup
Performance
(bits/s) P-Value SiW SiWE StW
Index of B A,B
0.0269 6.5(1.4) 7.0(1.4) 8.1(1.4)A
Performance

TABLE 6. MEAN (S.D.) OF FITTS LAW TASK PERFORMANCE ACROSS

THREE WORKSTATIONS

Fitts Law Performance Work Station Setup

(bits/s) SiW SiWE StW
Index of Performance 6.9(0.9) 7.3(2.0) 9.7(2.4)

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014
D. User Perception
The users found the standing workstation to be least difficult
to use while both sitting and standing workstation with the
desk at elbow height shared the lowest discomfort level (Table
7).
TABLE 7. ACROSS PARTICIPANT ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS (S.D.)
OF USER PERCEPTION, WHERE GROUP A>B>C.
User Work Station Setup
Experience
VAS (cm) P-Value SiW SiWE
A A
Difficulty 0.01 1.2(0.3) 1.1(0.3) 0.5(0.3) B
Discomfort 0.002 0.4(0.3) B 0.8(0.3) A 0.4(0.3) B
IV. DISCUSSION
The findings were consistent with our hypothesis that
workstations affect users’ motor performance, posture and
muscle effort. Specifically, the sitting workstation with
elevated desk induced more non-neutral postures and
increased muscle load, particularly on the shoulders. These
findings further show the need for ergonomic
recommendations for sitting workstations. When sitting and
standing desks were both set up at participant’s resting elbow
height, the standing workstation induced similar median level
of forearm extensor muscle efforts as the sitting workstation
while allowing for greater dynamic range (Figure 1). The
grater dynamic range in standing workstations implies a
greater variability in the range of muscle use for each muscle
(in this case forearm extensors). Thus, the results showed that
while participants spent the majority of the time at similar
muscle effort level (median) between sitting and standing, the
standing workstation allowed for greater variability for muscle
activation and less of a static muscle loading pattern. Since
static posture and muscle loading contributes to fatigue and
potential tissue damage, the greater variability (less static) in
muscle loading while working at a standing workstation
allows for greater blood flow, indicating a measurable benefit
of standing workstations. Further analysis showed that greater
extensor digitorum and extensor carpi radialis dynamic ranges
were associated with participants’ better motor performance
(p-values 0.04 and 0.0036, respectively). These results further
link dynamic ranges of specific forearm extensors with an
increase in motor performance as measured through the Fitts
Law task. The correlation between the increase in muscle load
variability and improved motor performance agrees with
previous research done investigating how motor variability
help improve occupational health and performance
(Srinivasan, 2012).
While users found the standing workstation to be the least
difficult to use along with the lowest discomfort level, most
values were lower than 2 out of the 10 cm visual analog scale.
This could be due to the fact that the duration of the task for
each study was below ten minutes and therefore the
participants enjoyed their freedom to move around without
constraints from the task chair. It should also be noted that no
Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
1454
participant indicated any low back pain at any point which
may play a major role of discomfort should the task be longer
than ten minutes as previous studies have clearly shown that
prolonged standing associates with greater low back pain
(Gallagher, 2014).
The median was chosen over the mean as the magnitude
measure as it is less susceptible to change in case of
encountering a less-normal data set. It was also chosen to be in
line with previous biomechanics literature where median level
is considered when the participants spent the majority of the
StW
test duration at such a level in a set of normal or close to
normal data
FIGURE 1. EXTENSOR CARPI RADIALIS DYNAMIC RANGE ILLUSTRATION.
THE BAR GRAPH SHOWED THAT STANDING WORKSTATION (STW) ALLOWED
FOR A GREATER DYNAMIC RANGE (90%ILE-10%ILE) WHILE MAINTAINING
SAME MEDIAN LEVEL OF MUSCLE LOAD COMPARED TO SITTING WORKSTATION
(SIW). THE STAR IN THE CHART INDICATED A STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE AND THE ERROR BAR WAS CALCULATED FROM STANDARD ERROR
ACROSS ALL PARTICIPANTS UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITION AND PERCENTILE OF
INTEREST.
Only female participants were included in the study as women
are typically with a smaller body frame and are more likely to
encounter non-adjustable sitting workstations that are not fit
for them. With a small sample size due to the pilot nature of
the study, controlling the gender also gave us a smaller range
of anthropometric measures and more interpretable results.
In addition, the study included a sitting computer workstation
with an elevated desk at 4-inch above the participant’s resting
elbow height to simulate real-life scenario and investigate the
consequence of a small user adapting to a large (non-optimal)
computer workstation.
Conclusions of current study are to be drawn within its
limitations. First, the pilot nature of the current study limited
us to a small sample size and lowered the generalizability of
the results to a younger female population. Second, this was a
laboratory study with ideal workstation settings. The short
duration (< 10 minutes) also made the findings of the study
only generalizable to short term mouse tasks across different
workstations. The study utilized a repetitive Fitts law test to
simulate cyclic computer mouse work and did not incorporate
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 1455

potential psychosocial stress that a real life job may have on

computer users.

Results point to the benefits in posture and shoulder muscle

load of properly configured sitting workstations. Results
further show that standing workstations induced greater
dynamic ranges with corresponding higher motor performance
than sitting workstations. Being able to identify the variability
of users’ postures and muscle load with different workstation
configurations may lead to interventions which may help
decrease users’ risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders
without sacrificing their motor performance.

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to thank Mark Janelli, Kristina Simberg and

Alan Le Goallec for their contribution with data collection and
compilation.
VI. REFERENCES

Aptel, M., Cail, F., Gerling, A., & Louis, O. (2008). Proposal of parameters to
implement a workstation rotation system to protect against MSDs.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(11–12), 900‑909.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.006
Asundi, K., Odell, D., Luce, A. & Dennerlein, J. T. 2010. Notebook computer
use on a desk, lap and lap support: effects on posture, performance and
comfort. Ergonomics, 53, 74-82.
Asundi, K., Odell, D., Luce, A. & Dennerlein, J. T. 2012. Changes in posture
through the use of simple inclines with notebook computers placed on a
standard desk. Appl Ergon, 43, 400-7.
Brown, W. J., Miller, Y. D., & Miller, R. (2003). Sitting time and work
patterns as indicators of overweight and obesity in Australian adults.
International Journal Of Obesity And Related Metabolic Disorders:
Journal Of The International Association For The Study Of Obesity,
27(11), 1340‑1346.
Dennerlein, J.T., Kingma, I.,Visser, B., van Dieën, J. (2007). The contribution
of the wrist, elbow and shoulder joints during single finger tapping, J.
Biomech, 40 pp 3013-3022.
Fitts, P. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in
controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, volume 47, number 6, June 1954, pp. 381–391
Gallagher K.M., Campbell T, Callaghan JP. The influence of a seated break
on prolonged standing induced low back pain development. Ergonomics.
2014;57(4):555-62. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2014.893027.
Laursen, B., Jensen, B.R., Garde, A.H., Jørgensen, A.H. (2002). Effect of
mental and physical demands on muscular activity during the use of a
computer mouse and a keyboard. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health,
28,215-221.
Smith, M. J., Conway, F. T., & Karsh, B. T. (1999). Occupational stress in
human computer interaction. (1999). Occupational stress in human
computer interaction. Industrial Health, 37(2), 157‑173. doi:10.
2486/indhealth.37.157
Srinivasan, D., Mathiassen, S.D. (2012). Motor variability in occupational
health and performance. Clin. Biomech., 27, 979-993.
Taillefer, F., Boucher, J.-P., Comtois, A. S., Zummo, M., & Savard, R.
(2011). Réponses physiologiques et biomécaniques à divers types de
bancs assis-debout chez les femmes avec et sans problèmes veineux. Le
travail humain, Vol. 74(1), 31‑58. doi:10.3917/th.741.0031
Waersted, M., Westgaard, R.H. (1996). Attention-related muscle activity in
different body regions during VDU work with minimal physical activity.
Ergonomics, 39, 661-676.
Winter, D. 2005. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement-
Third Edition.

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016