User Discomfort Evaluation Research on the Weight and Wearing Mode of Head-Wearable Device

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 795)


Augmented reality glasses are unlike regular glasses, its built-in camera, sensors and modules make it a small computing device capable of independent data processing. Because of the different product structures and wearing modes of AR glasses, its center of gravity and weight have become an important factor of the wearing experience. This research investigates mainly from the perspective of ergonomics and human-computer interaction, through the psychology and subjective experimental research under different structures and wearing modes, figuring out the relationship between users’ subjective discomfort for AR glasses and weight, the threshold value for each wearing mode under different weight, also figuring out the relationship between discomfort rate and the load in each support points, finally put forward a design constraints guidance to enhance the AR glasses wearing experience. The experimental results show that users have different weight thresholds for each AR glasses with different structures and wearing modes. Different wearing modes under the same weight can affect users’ feeling of discomfort.


AR glasses Discomfort rate Human-computer interaction Wearing mode Weight 


  1. 1.
    Andrabi, S.J., Reiter, M.K., Sturton, C.: Usability of augmented reality for revealing secret messages to users but not their devices. In: SOUPS (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melzer, J., et al.: Helmet-Mounted Displays: Sensation, Perception, and Cognition Issues, pp. 805–848. U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merkle, A.C., Kleinberger, M., Uy, O.M.: The effects of head-supported mass on the risk of neck injury in army personnel. Johns. Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 26(1), 75–83 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brackley, H.M., Stevenson, J.M., Selinger, J.C.: Effect of backpack load placement on posture and spinal curvature in prepubescent children. Work 32(3), 351–360 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Motti, V.G. Caine, K.: Human factors considerations in the design of wearable devices. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, J., et al.: Effects of weight balance on a 3D TV shutter type glasses: subjective discomfort and physical contact load on the nose. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44(6), 801–809 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, Z.-S., Cheng, X.-F.: Design of augmented reality glasses based on ergonomics. Packag. Eng. 38(20), 61–66 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spitzer, M.B., et al.: Eyeglass-based systems for wearable computing. In: First International Symposium on Wearable Computers. Digest of Papers. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vergara, M., Page, A.: Relationship between comfort and back posture and mobility in sitting-posture. Appl. Ergon. 33(1), 1–8 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borg, G.: Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Human Kinetics, Stockholm University (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chihara, T., Seo, A.: Evaluation of physical workload affected by mass and center of mass of head-mounted display. Appl. Ergon. 68, 204–212 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlsson, A.M.: Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 16(1), 87–101 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of DesignHunan UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations