在數位化普及的現在，更多的科技應用出現在我們的生活中，人們對於顯示裝置的需求也越來越多，舉凡工業、商業甚至是教育產業，多媒體功能、螢幕尺寸等規格也都較過往提升許多，而輸入設備方面隨著顯示裝置的要求、功能增加，衍生出許多有趣的議題待解決。
本研究主要透過客觀的肌肉骨骼傷害評估工具針對不同參數之觸控筆以及電子白板與傳統白板兩種不同介面之比較進行研究與探討，並由電子白板上常用任務設計出點擊、描繪與書寫作業，再根據使用者操作觸控筆時的肌肉活性、操作姿勢、觸控筆靈敏度、操作時間以及使用者的自主易用與疲勞感受等績效，期望找出較容易且適合使用者操作之觸控筆參數與影響關鍵。
實驗結果顯示，使用者操作觸控筆之績效會受到觸控筆本身筆頭的材質與寬度影響，導致其有著不同的靈敏度與操作彈性，進而造成肌電反應、手腕偏移角度、時間與自主評量分數之落差，另外在介面比較部分，傳統白板無論在何種績效表現上，皆有著較好的表現。然而探討觸控筆之參數好壞並非只看單一變相，還須綜合考量多個因素才能決定，如:使用情境、靈敏度與操作彈性等。最終，本研究提出了一套評估觸控筆設計參數之方法與其影響績效之關鍵，期望本研究之結果能夠替觸控筆設計帶來貢獻。

Nowadays, with the popularization of digitalization, more technology applications are appearing in our lives, and there is more and more demand for display devices. For example, in industry, commerce and even the education industry, multimedia function, screen size and other specifications are also improved a lot compared with the past. With the increase of the requirements and functions of the display device, many interesting issues have been derived from the input device to be solved.
This study mainly studies and explores the different parameters of the stylus and the two different interfaces between the electronic whiteboard and the traditional whiteboard through musculoskeletal injury assessment tools, and designs the pointing, steering and writing tasks by the common works on the electronic whiteboard, and then, according to the performance of muscle activity, operating posture, stylus sensitivity, operating time and user's self-use and fatigue feeling, is expected to find out the the key parameters and influence the parameters of the stylus.
The experimental results show that the performance will be affected by the material and width of the pen tip, resulting in different sensitivity and operational elasticity, which in turn causes the difference between myoelectric reaction, wrist offset angle, time and independent evaluation score, and in the interface comparison part, the traditional whiteboard has a good performance in any performance. Finally, this study presents a set of methods to evaluate the design parameters of the stylus and its key to influence performance, and hopes that the results of this study can contribute to the design of stylus.

1. Accot, J., & Zhai, S. (1999). Performance evaluation of input devices in trajectory-based tasks: an application of the steering law. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, USA.
2. Aflalo, E., Zana, L., & Huri, T. (2018). The interactive whiteboard in primary school science and interaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(4), 525-538. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1367695
3. Annett, M., Anderson, F., Bischof, W. F., & Gupta, A. (2014). The pen is mightier: understanding stylus behaviour while inking on tablets. Paper presented at the Graphics Interface 2014, Montreal Quebec, Canada.
4. Annett, M., & Bischof, W. F. (2015). Hands, hover, and nibs: understanding stylus accuracy on tablets. Paper presented at the 41st Graphics Interface Conference, Halifax Nova Scotia, Canada.
5. Balta, N., & Duran, M. (2015). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in elementary and secondary school classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(2), 15-21.
6. Beeland Jr, W. D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: can interactive whiteboards help? Action Research Exchange, 1(1).
7. Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning Media Technology, 33(4), 289-300. doi:10.1080/17439880802497008
8. Bini, R. R., Diefenthaeler, F., & Mota, C. B. (2010). Fatigue effects on the coordinative pattern during cycling: Kinetics and kinematics evaluation. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 20(1), 102-107. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.10.003
9. Bogaert, I., De Martelaer, K., Beutels, M., De Ridder, K., & Zinzen, E. J. E. (2016). Posture analysis among Flemish secondary school teachers: difference between the use of chalkboards and electronic school boards during classroom teaching. Ergonomics, 59(11), 1487-1493. doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1139751
10. Brandl, P., Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Haller, M., & Shen, C. (2008). Combining and measuring the benefits of bimanual pen and direct-touch interaction on horizontal interfaces. Paper presented at the Working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, Napoli, Italy.
11. Bregler, C. (2007). Motion capture technology for entertainment. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 24(6), 160-158. doi:10.1109/MSP.2007.906023
12. Chang, C.-K. (2008). Usability comparison of pen-based input for young children on mobile devices. Paper presented at the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing (sutc 2008), Taichung, Taiwan.
13. Coll, R., Zia, K., & Coll, J. H. (1994). A comparison of three computer cursor control devices: pen on horizontal tablet, mouse and keyboard. Information management, 27(6), 329-339. doi:10.1016/0378-7206(94)90014-0
14. da Costa, B. R., & Vieira, E. R. (2010). Risk factors for work‐related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. American journal of industrial medicine, 53(3), 285-323. doi:10.1002/ajim.20750
15. de Almeida, P. H. T. Q., da Cruz, D. M. C., Magna, L. A., & Ferrigno, I. S. V. (2013). An electromyographic analysis of two handwriting grasp patterns. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 23(4), 838-843. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.04.004
16. Dempsey, P. G., McGorry, R. W., & Maynard, W. S. (2005). A survey of tools and methods used by certified professional ergonomists. Applied ergonomics, 36(4), 489-503. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.01.007
17. Dennerlein, J. T., Martin, D. B., & Hasser, C. (2000). Force-feedback improves performance for steering and combined steering-targeting tasks. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, The Netherlands.
18. Dennis, J. L., & Swinth, Y. (2001). Pencil grasp and children’s handwriting legibility during different-length writing tasks. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(2), 175-183. doi:10.5014/ajot.55.2.175
19. Dong, H., Loomer, P., Barr, A., LaRoche, C., Young, E., & Rempel, D. (2007). The effect of tool handle shape on hand muscle load and pinch force in a simulated dental scaling task. Applied ergonomics, 38(5), 525-531. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.09.002
20. Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of experimental psychology, 47(6), 381. doi:10.1037/h0055392
21. Goldberg, D., & Richardson, C. (1993). Touch-typing with a stylus. Paper presented at the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
22. Haak, T., Edelman, S., Walter, C., Lecointre, B., & Spollett, G. (2007). Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study. Clinical therapeutics, 29(4), 650-660. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.04.003
23. Hancock, M. S., & Booth, K. S. (2004). Improving menu placement strategies for pen input. Paper presented at the Graphics Interface 2004, London, Ontario.
24. Hägg, G. M., Luttmann, A., & Jäger, M. (2000). Methodologies for evaluating electromyographic field data in ergonomics. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 10(5), 301-312. doi:10.1016/S1050-6411(00)00022-5
25. Holzinger, A., Holler, M., Schedlbauer, M., & Urlesberger, B. (2008). An investigation of finger versus stylus input in medical scenarios. Paper presented at the ITI 2008-30th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, Cavtat, Croatia.
26. Hussain, M., Reaz, M. B. I., Mohd‐Yasin, F., & Ibrahimy, M. I. (2009). Electromyography signal analysis using wavelet transform and higher order statistics to determine muscle contraction. Expert Systems, 26(1), 35-48. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0394.2008.00483.x
27. Ishak, N. A., Khalid, P. I., Mahmood, N. H., & Harun, M. (2014). Study of muscle signal variability based on wrist and thumb movements during handwriting activity. Paper presented at the 2014 IEEE Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (IECBES), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
28. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2008). Exploring pedagogy with interactiue whiteboards in Australian schools. Australian Educational Computing, 23(1), 8-14.
29. Kim, K., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2020). Emotional factors and physical properties of ballpoint pens that affect user satisfaction: Implications for pen and stylus design. Applied ergonomics, 85. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103067
30. Kotani, K., & Horii, K. (2003). An analysis of muscular load and performance in using a pen-tablet system. Journal of physiological anthropology applied human science, 22(2), 89-95. doi:10.2114/jpa.22.89
31. Kumar, S., Narayan, Y., & Amell, T. (2003). Analysis of low velocity frontal impacts. Clinical Biomechanics, 18(8), 694-703. doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(03)00137-2
32. Kumar, S., & Prasad, N. (2010). Torso muscle EMG profile differences between patients of back pain and control. Clinical Biomechanics, 25(2), 103-109. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.10.013
33. Lacquaniti, F. (1989). Central representations of human limb movement as revealed by studies of drawing and handwriting. Trends in Neurosciences, 12(8), 287-291. doi:10.1016/0166-2236(89)90008-8
34. Leonard, J. H., Kok, K., Ayiesha, R., Das, S., Roslizawati, N., Vikram, M., & Baharudin, O. (2010). Prolonged writing task: comparison of electromyographic analysis of upper trapezius muscle in subjects with or without neck pain. Clinica Terapeutica, 161(1), 29.
35. Linderman, M., Lebedev, M. A., & Erlichman, J. S. (2009). Recognition of handwriting from electromyography. PLoS One, 4(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006791
36. Müller, C., Tomatis, L., & Läubli, T. (2010). Muscular load and performance compared between a pen and a computer mouse as input devices. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(6), 607-617. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2010.08.004
37. MacKenzie, I. S. (1992). Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Human-computer interaction, 7(1), 91-139. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0701_3
38. MacKenzie, I. S., Sellen, A., & Buxton, W. A. (1991). A comparison of input devices in element pointing and dragging tasks. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New Orleans, USA.
39. Marras, W. S., Cutlip, R. G., Burt, S. E., & Waters, T. R. (2009). National occupational research agenda (NORA) future directions in occupational musculoskeletal disorder health research. Applied ergonomics, 40(1), 15-22. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.01.018
40. McQueen, C., MacKenzie, I. S., Nonnecke, B., Riddersma, S., & Meltz, M. (1994). A comparison of four methods of numeric entry on pen-based computers. Paper presented at the Graphics Interface, Toronto, Canada.
41. Murchie, C. J., Kenny, G. N., & computing. (1988). Comparison of keyboard, light pen and voice recognition as methods of data input. International journal of clinical monitoring, 5(4), 243-246. doi:10.1007/BF02915914
42. Naider-Steinhart, S., & Katz-Leurer, M. J. A. J. o. O. T. (2007). Analysis of proximal and distal muscle activity during handwriting tasks. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 392-398. doi:10.5014/ajot.61.4.392.
43. Park, S.-M., Lee, K., & Kyung, K.-U. (2011). A new stylus for touchscreen devices. Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, USA.
44. Pereira, A., Miller, T., Huang, Y.-M., Odell, D., & Rempel, D. (2013). Holding a tablet computer with one hand: effect of tablet design features on biomechanics and subjective usability among users with small hands. Ergonomics, 56(9), 1363-1375. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.820844
45. Phinyomark, A., Phukpattaranont, P., & Limsakul, C. (2012). Feature reduction and selection for EMG signal classification. Expert systems with applications, 39(8), 7420-7431. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.102
46. Portnoy, S., Rosenberg, L., Alazraki, T., Elyakim, E., & Friedman, J. (2015). Differences in muscle activity patterns and graphical product quality in children copying and tracing activities on horizontal or vertical surfaces. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 25(3), 540-547. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.01.011
47. Punnett, L., & Wegman, D. H. (2004). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 14(1), 13-23. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2003.09.015
48. Reaz, M. B. I., Hussain, M. S., & Mohd-Yasin, F. (2006). Techniques of EMG signal analysis: detection, processing, classification and applications. Biological procedures online, 8(1), 11-35. doi:10.1251/bpo115
49. Ren, X., & Zhou, X. (2011). An investigation of the usability of the stylus pen for various age groups on personal digital assistants. Behaviour Information Technology, 30(6), 709-726. doi:10.1080/01449290903205437
50. Richards, M., Bladek, M., & Okamoto, K. (2018). Interactive whiteboards in library instruction: Facilitating student engagement and active learning. CUNY Academic Works, 8(1), 1-27.
51. Robertson, G. E., Caldwell, G. E., Hamill, J., Kamen, G., & Whittlesey, S. (2014). Research methods in biomechanics. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 13(1).
52. Schwellnus, H., Carnahan, H., Kushki, A., Polatajko, H., Missiuna, C., & Chau, T. (2013). Writing forces associated with four pencil grasp patterns in grade 4 children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(2), 218-227. doi:10.5014/ajot.2013.005538
53. Şengül, M., & Türel, Y. K. (2019). Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language with Interactive Whiteboards: A Case Study of Multilingual Learners. Technology, Knowledge Learning Media Technology, 24(1), 101-115. doi:10.1007/s10758-017-9350-z
54. Sporrong, H., Palmerud, G., Kadefors, R., & Herberts, P. (1998). The effect of light manual precision work on shoulder muscles—an EMG analysis. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 8(3), 177-184. doi:10.1016/S1050-6411(97)00032-1
55. Sutherland, D. H. (2002). The evolution of clinical gait analysis: Part II Kinematics. Gait Posture, 16(2), 159-179. doi:10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00004-8
56. Vercellotti, M. L. (2018). Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of classroom context. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 197-210. doi:10.1177/1469787417735606
57. Wang, D., Dai, F., & Ning, X. (2015). Risk assessment of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in construction: State-of-the-art review. Journal of Construction Engineering management, 141(6). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000979
58. Wu, F.-G., & Luo, S. (2006). Performance study on touch-pens size in three screen tasks. Applied ergonomics, 37(2), 149-158. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.05.011
59. Yudt, K., & Columba, L. (2011). Interactive Whiteboards: A Tool for Enhancing Teaching and Learning. National Teacher Education Journal, 4(2), 81-86.
60. Zaza, C. (1998). Playing-related musculoskeletal disorders in musicians: a systematic review of incidence and prevalence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 158(8), 1019-1025.
61. Zhai, S., & Woltjer, R. (2003). Human movement performance in relation to path constraint-the law of steering in locomotion. Paper presented at the IEEE Virtual Reality, 2003. Proceedings., Los Angeles, USA.
62. 杜信宏, 陳志勇, & 劉立文. (2014). 我國重大職業災害之人因工程分析與檢核表. 勞工安全衛生研究季刊, 22(2), 124-135.