The influence of computer monitor height on head and neck posture1

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00033-4Get rights and content

Abstract

This research describes the influence of “eye level” and “low” monitor locations on the head and neck posture of subjects performing a word processing task. Lowering the monitor to a position 18° below eye level had no significant effect on the position of the neck relative to the trunk, while the mean flexion of the head relative to the neck increased by 5° (p=0.024). In the “eye level” condition the mean gaze angle was 17° below the ear-eye line, and in the “low” condition the average gaze angle was 25° below the ear-eye line. Lowering the monitor thus allows gaze angles closer to that preferred (somewhere between 35° and 44° below the ear-eye line) to be adopted. An examination of head and neck biomechanics suggests that recommendations of the “top of monitor at eye height” type must be questioned.


Relevance to industry

Current recommendations regarding the appropriate height of computer monitors are based more on intuition than empirical evidence. Lower computer monitor placements may be beneficial.

Section snippets

Subjects

Twelve staff and students from a university population (aged 21–30) volunteered to participate. All were familiar with keyboard/monitor workstations and possessed some word processing experience.

Procedure

Each subject was provided with a chair, desk, document holder, keyboard, and monitor. The chair, document holder, and monitor were adjustable in height and tilt, and the desk was adjustable in height only. Each subject participated in two experimental conditions which differed only in the location of

Results

Examination of the summary statistics (Table 1) reveals reliable differences between the “eye height” and “low” monitor conditions in terms of the postures adopted to perform the word processing task. The positions of the neck relative to the trunk did not differ; however, greater flexion of the atlanto-occipital and upper cervical joints was observed in the “low” monitor condition. Specifically, while the “low” monitor was associated with an increase in the average maximum flexion of the neck

Discussion

Lowering the monitor did not cause changes in the posture of the neck relative to the trunk, but did increase the flexion of the head relative to the neck. Subjects did not adopt postures in either condition which approximated the previously reported preferred gaze angles, although the gaze angles adopted in the “low” condition were closer.

It is not clear what the functional consequences of the observed postural changes might be. Increases in flexor moment are an inevitable consequence of

References (21)

  • V.K. Goel et al.

    Moment-rotation relationships of the ligamentous occipito-atlanto-axial complex

    Journal of Biomechanics

    (1988)
  • H. Hsiao et al.

    Evaluating posture behavior during seated tasks

    International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

    (1991)
  • C.J. Snijders et al.

    A biomechanical model for the analysis of the cervical spine in static posture

    Journal of Biomechanics

    (1991)
  • D.R. Ankrum et al.

    Posture, comfort, and monitor placement

    Ergonomics in Design

    (1995)
  • U. Bergquist et al.

    Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal workersIndividual, ergonomic, and work organizational factors

    Ergonomics

    (1995)
  • R. Cailliet

    Neck and Arm Pain

    (1991)
  • D.B. Chaffin

    Localized muscle fatiguedefinition and measurement

    Journal of Occupational Medicine

    (1973)
  • M. Dalton et al.

    The effect of age on cervical posture in a normal population

  • M. de Wall et al.

    Improving the sitting posture of CAD/CAM workers by increasing VDU monitor working height

    Ergonomics

    (1992)
  • K. Harms-Ringdahl et al.

    Load moments and myoelectric activity when the cervical spine is held in full flexion and extension

    Ergonomics

    (1986)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (64)

  • Using evidence to support the design of submarine control console workstations

    2019, Applied Ergonomics
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, one low quality study (Fogleman and Lewis, 2002) found low monitors resulted in a higher risk factor for shoulder/back discomfort. A moderate level of evidence was found to support the statement that a lower screen, top edge of screen approximately 10 cm below horizontal eye level when viewing distance is approximately 57 cm (line of sight 15–300 below the horizontal line of sight), results in positive health effects (Aaras et al., 1997; Burgess-Limerick et al., 1998, 1999, 2000; Fostervold et al., 2006; Izquierdo et al., 2004; Konig et al., 2015; Korhonen et al., 2003; Sommerich et al., 2001; Straker et al., 2009a, 2009b; Turville et al., 1998). Two moderate quality studies (Straker et al., 2009b; Turville et al., 1998) found a screen lower than 400 resulted in increased strain on neck muscles.

  • Design specifications for Multi-Function Consoles for use in submarines using anthropometric data of South Koreans

    2017, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Operators usually track and analyze targets using the lower monitor, and detect any unexpected signals using the upper monitor in case of emergency. As several VDT (Visual Display Terminal) studies insist, incorrect monitor placement causes postural discomfort and leads to aches (Burgess-Limerick et al., 1999; Villanueva et al., 1996). Thus, we examined the appropriate distances and proper angles for the monitors.

View all citing articles on Scopus
1

Requests for reprints should be sent to Robin Burgess-Limerick, Department of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, 4072, Australia.

View full text