Punt Marius M, Stefels Coen N, Grimbergen Cornelis A, Dankelman Jenny
Man-Machine Systems Group, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Material Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2005;14(3):181-7. doi: 10.1080/13645700510033967.
The increasing amount of equipment used in the Operating Room (OR) asks for ergonomical user interfaces. The aim of this study was to investigate in a pelvi-trainer setting the efficiency, reliability and user satisfaction of voice control, touch panel control and conventional manual control by an assistant. Ten subjects had to control the zoom and light intensity of an endoscope, using voice, a touch panel or an assistant. For each interface, the subject received nine tasks to control to a certain level, light, zoom or both. The experiment was repeated three times (three cycles) and the sequences of interfaces were varied per cycle. Experiments were recorded on video and off-line time needed per task and the number of wrongly interpreted tasks were measured. A questionnaire was used to investigate user satisfaction. Voice control was slower than assistant control and touch panel control (92.5 s, 80.2 s and 76.0 s, respectively, p<0.02). There was no significant difference between touch panel control and assistant control. With voice control, 3.1% of the commands were not interpreted and 1.7% were wrongly interpreted. 40% of the subjects experienced voice control as the quickest, 30% touch panel control and 30% assistant control. 48% of the subjects preferred voice control, 28% the touch panel and 24% assistant control. Voice control was less efficient than touch panel control and manual control by an assistant. The subjects experienced voice control as more efficient, however. In the future, voice control should be improved to overcome wrongly interpreted commands. Furthermore, experiments should be performed in a clinical setting in which the surgeon has to perform two-handed tasks to evaluate the effects on the surgeon's performance.
手术室（OR）中使用的设备数量不断增加，这就需要符合人体工程学的用户界面。本研究的目的是在骨盆训练器环境中，研究语音控制、触摸屏控制和助手传统手动控制的效率、可靠性和用户满意度。十名受试者必须使用语音、触摸屏或助手来控制内窥镜的变焦和光强度。对于每个界面，受试者要完成九项任务，将其控制到一定水平，即光、变焦或两者。实验重复进行三次（三个周期），每个周期界面顺序不同。实验过程录制在视频中，测量每项任务所需的离线时间以及错误解读任务的数量。使用问卷来调查用户满意度。语音控制比助手控制和触摸屏控制慢（分别为92.5秒、80.2秒和76.0秒，p<0.02）。触摸屏控制和助手控制之间没有显著差异。对于语音控制，3.1%的命令未被解读且1.7%被错误解读。40%的受试者认为语音控制最快，30%认为是触摸屏控制，30%认为是助手控制。48%的受试者更喜欢语音控制，28%更喜欢触摸屏，24%更喜欢助手控制。语音控制不如触摸屏控制和助手手动控制高效。然而，受试者认为语音控制更高效。未来，应改进语音控制以克服命令错误解读的问题。此外，应在临床环境中进行实验，外科医生必须执行双手任务，以评估对其操作表现的影响。
