An Ergonomic Evaluation of Convex Probe Designs Using Objective and Subjective Measures

  • Soojin Moon
  • Hayoung Jung
  • Seunghoon Lee
  • Eunjin Jeon
  • Junpil Moon
  • Seungju Lee
  • Kilsu Ha
  • Heecheon YouEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)


Use of a convex probe suitable to the hand and operating motion of the probe can contribute to prevention of sonographers from musculoskeletal disorders at work. The present study presents an ergonomic evaluation process customized to convex array ultrasound probe design. Various convex probe designs were evaluated by a mix of nine sonographers and medical doctors in terms of EMG activities of the upper extremity muscles, motion ranges of the upper extremity joints, and subjective satisfaction measures. A randomized controlled testing was administered for the probe designs in a simulation workstation at a designated speed of tilting, pushing, and rotating of convex probe. The subjective satisfaction results were found effective to identify preferred design features in detail, while the EMG and motion analysis results to identify a preferred probe design overall in terms of muscular load at the hand and postural comfort of the forearm.


Convex probe design Ergonomic evaluation Preferred design feature 



The present research was jointly supported by Samsung Medison Corporation, Mid-Career Research Programs through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2018R1A2A2A05023299), and the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (No. 10063384; R0004840, 2017).


  1. 1.
    Bernard BP (1997) Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burnett DR, Campbell-Kyureghyan NH (2010) Quantification of scan-specific ergonomic risk-factors in medical sonography. Int J Ind Ergon 40:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evans K, Roll S, Baker J (2009) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) among registered diagnostic medical sonographers and vascular technologists. J Diagn Med Sonogr 25(6):287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friesen MN, Friesen R, Quanbury A, Arpin S (2006) Musculoskeletal injuries among ultrasound sonographers in rural Manitoba: a study of workplace ergonomics. Am Assoc Occup Health Nurses J 54(1):32–37Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Habes DJ, Baron S (2000) Ergonomic evaluation of antenatal ultrasound testing procedures. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15(7):521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horkey J, King P (2004) Ergonomic recommendations and their role in cardiac sonography. Work 22(3):207–218Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Korean Agency for Technology and Standard (KATS) (2004) Report on the 6th Size-Korea (Korean Body Measurement and Investigation). Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paschoarelli LC, Oliveira AB, Coury HJCG (2008) Assessment of the ergonomic design of diagnostic ultrasound transducers through wrist movements and subjective evaluation. Int J Ind Ergon 38:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Punnett L, Wegman DH (2004) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 14(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Management EngineeringPohang University of Science and TechnologyPohangSouth Korea
  2. 2.Design GroupSamsung Medison Co.SeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations