China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Research Methods
Published in Nancy J. Stone, Chaparro Alex, Joseph R. Keebler, Barbara S. Chaparro, Daniel S. McConnell, Introduction to Human Factors, 2017
Nancy J. Stone, Chaparro Alex, Joseph R. Keebler, Barbara S. Chaparro, Daniel S. McConnell
When using the inferential method, we could use a between-subjects design, whereby different participants are assigned to each group or condition. With this design, different participants would be exposed to a low-, medium-, or high-complexity situation and to either the “driving with” or “driving without” conditions. Our results would compare responses “between” individuals. In contrast, a within-subjects design (sometimes referred to as a repeated measures design) would have the same participants experience all the different conditions of the independent variable. In this case, the results are from “within” the same participants. In our driving experiment, it might make sense to have the same participants experience the low-, medium-, and high-complexity situations (in random order). We could design an experiment where different participants experience the “driving with” condition and the “driving without” condition (between-subjects), but the participants experience all three complexity conditions (within-subjects) regardless of the cell phone use condition. This is known as a mixed design, a combination of between (driving with or without a phone) and within (complexity level) designs.
Effectiveness and usability of real-time vibrotactile feedback training to reduce postural exposure in real manual sorting work
Published in Ergonomics, 2023
Carl Mikael Lind, Bart De Clercq, Mikael Forsman, Alain Grootaers, Mathieu Verbrugghe, Lieve Van Dyck, Liyun Yang
This study applied a within-subjects design where each participant served as their own control instead of having a control group. The advantages of the repeated measures design, which was chosen in this study, include a higher statistical power by controlling variability between subjects, and fewer subjects were required. One disadvantage of this design was the order effects, which could be affected by the order of the tested condition or changes due to learning over time. Still, the results showed that the effects on postural exposure improvement increased during and directly after the training sessions and reduced during follow-ups 1 and 2. This pattern of the changes did not support a learning effect; on the contrary, it supported that the changes were mainly due to the feedback training provided.
Visuomotor behaviors and performance in a dual-task paradigm with and without vibrotactile feedback when using a myoelectric controlled hand
Published in Assistive Technology, 2018
Eitan Raveh, Jason Friedman, Sigal Portnoy
First, the training comprised of opening and closing the robotic hand via the EMG signals for approximately 15 minutes. In this time, the improvement of performance in speed and accuracy was noted in all subjects, so that the trial did not commence before they could open and close the hand for at least five subsequent cycles without subjective effort reported. Then, the dual-task trial was performed twice: once with the VTF activated and once without a VTF (the vibrotactile actuators were still attached to the subjects, but were turned off). A 10-minute rest period was provided to the subjects between the two trials. In order to prevent an order effect in learning the task, the study was performed in a repeated-measures design with a counter-balanced order of two conditions, so that half the subjects started the trial with feedback and repeated the trial without feedback, and vice versa for the other half.