ergonomics

View more Health videos

(ûr'gə-nŏm'ĭks)
n.

1. (used with a sing. verb) The applied science of equipment design, as for the workplace, intended to maximize productivity by reducing operator fatigue and discomfort. Also called biotechnology, human engineering, Also called human factors engineering.
2. (used with a pl. verb) Design factors, as for the workplace, intended to maximize productivity by minimizing operator fatigue and discomfort: The ergonomics of the new office were felt to be optimal.

[Greek ergon, work + (ECO)NOMICS.]

ergonomic er'go·nom'ic or er'go·no·met'ric (-nə-mĕt'rĭk) adj.
ergonomically er'go·nom'i·cal·ly adv.
ergonomist er·gon'o·mist (ûr-gŏn'ə-mĭst) n.

For more information on ergonomics, visit Britannica.com.

The science of people-machine relationships. An ergonomically designed product implies that the device blends smoothly with a person's body or actions.

Ergonomics

Although ergonomically designed seats, keyboards and mice are important, perhaps the most beneficial aspect of ergonomics is teaching people to get up periodically and stretch. (Redrawn from original illustration courtesy of Hewlett-Packard Company.)

Download Computer Desktop Encyclopedia to your PC, iPhone or Android.

risk management control device used to minimize accidents and injuries to employees resulting from an unsafe working environment. For example, potential cumulative trauma disorders losses may be lowered by using office furniture that reduces the physical and mental stress resulting from repetitive motions, such as constantly reading a computer screen.

Previous:	Equity Indexed Universal Life Insurance, Equity Indexed Annuity, Equity Among Policyowners
Next:	Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance, Escrowaccount, Estate

Ergonomics is the process of changing the work environment (equipment, furniture, pace of work, etc.) to fit the physical requirements and limitations of employees, rather than forcing workers to adapt to jobs that can, over time, have a debilitating effect on their physical well-being. Companies of all shapes and sizes have increasingly recognized that establishing an ergonomically sensitive work environment for employees can produce bottom-line benefits in cutting absenteeism, reducing health care costs, and increasing productivity. The most progressive of these firms have—after careful analysis of the workplace environment and the tasks that their employees have to perform—taken steps to modify that environment (whether in a shop floor or an office) to better fit the physical needs and abilities of workers.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the Department of Labor defines ergonomic disorders (EDs) as a range of health ailments arising from repeated stress to the body. These disorders—which are sometimes also called repetitive strain injuries (RSIs), musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), or cumulative trauma disorders—may affect the musculoskeletal, nervous, or neurovascular systems. They typically strike workers involved in repetitious tasks, or those whose jobs require heavy lifting or awkward postures or movements. These ailments often occur in the upper body of workers, causing injuries in the back, neck, hands, wrists, shoulders, and/or elbows. Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most well-known of these maladies, but thousands of employees have also fallen victim to tendinitis and back injuries over the years. Ergonomics experts say that EDs are particularly prevalent in certain industries. Cashiers, nurses, assembly line workers, computer users, dishwashers, truck drivers, stock handlers, construction workers, meat cutters, and sewing machine operators are among those cited as being most at risk of falling victim to ergonomic disorders.

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, work-related MSDs strike 1.8 million American workers each year. "These injuries are potentially disabling and can require long recovery periods," wrote OSHA's Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress in Business Insurance. "For example, workers need an average of 28 days to recuperate from carpal tunnel syndrome, which is more time than necessary for amputations or fractures. MSDs are also very costly injuries. Direct costs of MSDs total $15 billion to $20 billion per year. Indirect costs increase that total to $50 billion. That's an average of $135 million a day."

OSHA has cited a set of risk factors that contribute to the likelihood of repetitive strain injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome. These include:

• Performing the same motion or pattern of motions for more than two hours at a time.
• Using tools or machines that cause vibrations for more than two hours a day.
• Handling objects that weigh more than 25 pounds more than one time in a work shift.
• Working in fixed or awkward positions for more than two hours a day.
• Performing work that is mechanically or electronically paced for more than four hours at a time.

In the mid-1990s, the issue of ergonomics became a subject of considerable debate between unions and industries. The AFL-CIO, for instance, called RSIs and job-related back injuries "the nation's biggest job safety problem," contending that more than 700,000 workers miss work each year because of these ailments. Certainly, for workers who are debilitated by carpal tunnel syndrome or some other injury, the consequences can be dire. Long-term disability (with its attendant diminishment of financial well-being) is a real possibility for many workers who fall victim to RSIs. Some unions subsequently called for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to impose minimum ergonomic standards, and OSHA responded by beginning work on basic ergonomic standards for businesses. The agency completed work on their proposal in the late 1990s, and in 2000 the Clinton administration issued regulations requiring businesses to reimburse injured workers' medical costs, inform workers about repetitive-motion injuries, and compensate them at nearly fully salary (90 percent for first 90 days missed) if they miss work due to ergonomic-related injuries. Supporters contended that these new ergonomics program standards would prevent an average of 600,000 ergonomic/musculoskeletal disorders annually (and4.6 million work-related musculoskeletal injuries over 10 years) and generate $10 billion in savings each year.

Business owners and other opponents, though, claimed that compliance with the new ergonomics standards constituted an unfair burden on small businesses. Some business interests estimated the rules would cost as much as $100 billion annually (OSHA placed the cost of the new regulations to businesses at $4.5 billion a year). Critics also contended that OSHA overstated the extent of the problem of ergonomic disorders in the workplace. In March 2001, the Bush Administration joined with the Republican-controlled Congress to reverse these new work safety rules. This move was widely applauded by small business owners and various business groups, but denounced by labor unions and other workers groups.

Whatever the prevailing regulatory atmosphere, numerous business enterprises in a wide variety of industries have shown an increased interest in factoring ergonomics in to their operational strategies, heeding business consultants who claim that an ergonomically sensitive environment can produce major economic benefits for companies. They point out that businesses boasting such environments often see a lower rate of absenteeism, lower health care expenses, lower turnover rates, and higher productivity than do other businesses in the same industry.

For small business owners, building an ergonomically sensitive work environment can depend on a number of different factors. While instituting an additional work break or two during the workday (a simple step that is sometimes cited as a deterrent to development of carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetition-related injuries) does not require the business owner to make any additional capital expenditures, instituting physical changes can be significantly more expensive, especially for established businesses that are small. Buying ergonomic furniture or making significant changes in assembly line layout can be quite expensive, and while the owner of a new business may choose to take ergonomics into account with his or her initial investment, it may be more difficult for the already-established small business owner to replace still-functional equipment and furniture. Each small business owner must determine for himself or herself whether the long-term gains that can be realized from establishing an ergonomically sound workplace (employee retention, productivity, diminished health costs, etc.) make up for the added financial investment (and possible debt) that such expenditures entail.

Further Reading:

Ergonomics Desk Reference. J.J. Keller and Associates, 2000.

Jeffress, Charles N. "Ergonomics Standard Good for Business." Business Insurance. October 23, 2000.

Lawrence, Nancy, Sandra Allen, and Paula Shanks. "How Good is Your Ergonomics Program?" Safety and Health. March 2000.

Thomas, Jane. "What Ergonomics Can Do For You." Women in Business. January-February 1999.

Warner, David. "OSHA is Moving on Ergonomics Rule." Nation's Business. August 1997.

See also: Workplace Safety; Workstation

Why is the video recorder one of the most frustrating domestic items to operate? Why do some car seats leave you aching after a long journey? Why do some computer work-stations confer eye strain and muscle fatigue? Such human irritations and inconveniences are not inevitable — ergonomics is an approach which puts human needs and capabilities at the focus of designing technological systems. The aim is to ensure that humans and technology work in complete harmony, with the equipment and tasks aligned to human characteristics.

Ergonomics has wide application to everyday domestic situations, but there are even more significant implications for efficiency, productivity, safety, and health in work settings. For example:

(i) Designing equipment and systems, including computers, so that they are easier to use and less likely to lead to errors in operation — particularly important in high stress and safety-critical operations such as control rooms.
(ii) Designing tasks and jobs so that they are effective and take account of human needs such as rest breaks and sensible shift patterns, as well as other factors such as the intrinsic rewards of work itself.
(iii) Designing equipment and work arrangements to improve working posture and ease the load on the body, thus reducing instances of Repetitive Strain Injury/Work Related Upper Limb Disorder.
(iv) Information design, to make the interpretation and use of handbooks, signs, and displays easier and less error-prone.
(v) Design of training arrangements to cover all significant aspects of the job concerned and to take account of human learning requirements.
(vi) The design of military and space equipment and systems — an extreme case of demands on the human being.
(vii) Designing working environments, including lighting and heating, to suit the needs of the users and the tasks performed. Where necessary, design of personal protective equipment for work in hostile environments.
(viii) In developing countries, the acceptability and effectiveness of even fairly basic technology can be significantly enhanced.

The multi-disciplinary nature of ergonomics (sometimes called ‘Human Factors’) is immediately obvious. The ergonomist works in teams which may involve a variety of other professions: design engineers, production engineers, industrial designers, computer specialists, industrial physicians, health and safety practitioners, and specialists in human resources. The overall aim is to ensure that our knowledge of human characteristics is brought to bear on practical problems of people at work and in leisure. We know that, in many cases, humans can adapt to unsuitable conditions, but such adaptation leads often to inefficiency, errors, unacceptable stress, and physical or mental cost.

The components of ergonomics

Ergonomics deals with the interaction of technological and work situations with the human being. The basic human sciences involved are anatomy, physiology, and psychology. These sciences are applied by the ergonomist towards two objectives: the most productive use of human capabilities, and the maintenance of human health and well-being. In a phrase, ‘the job must fit the person’ in all respects, and the work situation should not compromise human capabilities and limitations.

The contribution of basic anatomy lies in improving the physical ‘fit’ between people and the things they use, ranging from hand tools to aircraft cockpit design. Achieving good physical fit is no mean feat when one considers the range in human body sizes across the population. The science of anthropometrics provides data on dimensions of the human body, in various postures. Biomechanics considers the operation of the muscles and limbs, and ensures that working postures are beneficial, and that excessive forces are avoided.

Our knowledge of human physiology supports two main technical areas. Work physiology addresses the energy requirements of the body, and sets standards for acceptable physical work-rate and workload, and for nutrition requirements. Environmental physiology analyses the impact of physical working conditions — thermal, noise and vibration, and lighting — and sets the optimum requirements for these.

Psychology is concerned with human information processing and decision-making capabilities. In simple terms, this can be seen as aiding the cognitive ‘fit’ between people and the things they use. Relevant topics are sensory processes, perception, long- and short-term memory, decision making, and action. There is also a strong thread of organizational psychology.

The importance of the psychological dimension of ergonomics should not be underestimated in today's ‘high-tech’ world — remember the video recorder example at the beginning. The ergonomist advises on the design of interfaces between people and computers (Human Computer Interaction or HCI), information displays for industrial processes, the planning of training materials, and the design of human tasks and jobs. The concept of ‘information overload’ is familiar in many current jobs. Paradoxically, increasing automation, while dispensing with human involvement in routine operations, frequently increases the mental demands in terms of monitoring, supervision, and maintenance.

The ergonomics approach — understanding tasks … and the users

Underlying all ergonomics work is careful analysis of human activity. The ergonomist must understand all of the demands being made on the person, and the likely effects of any changes to these — the techniques which enable him to do this come under the portmanteau label of ‘job and task analysis’.

The second key ingredient is to understand the users. For example, ‘consumer ergonomics’ covers applications to the wider contexts of the home and leisure. In these non-work situations the need to allow for human variability is at its greatest — the people involved have a very wide range of capabilities and limitations (including the disabled and elderly), and seldom have any selection or training for the tasks which face them.

This commitment to ‘human-centred design’ is an essential ‘humanizing’ influence on contemporary rapid developments in technology, in contexts ranging from the domestic to all types of industry.

— David Whitfield, Joe Langford

Bibliography

• Kroemer, K. (1997). Fitting the task to the human, (5th edn). Taylor and Francis, London.
• Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books Inc., New York. (Reprinted in paperback as The design of everyday things. Doubleday, New York, 1990.)

Ergonomics is the science of fitting the demands of work to the physical capacities of the worker. Its inception during World War II by the U.S. military was in response to the realization that disparities in work demands and physical capacities can result in serious injury and death.

Ergonomic injuries have become the most common cause of workplace illness and injury in the United States. Back injuries and cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs) such as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, bursitis, and epicondylitis account for the overwhelming majority of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses, costing employers more than $12 billion per year in lost work time, workers' compensation payments, and medical expenses.

CTDs have increased dramatically since 1980, comprising roughly 18 percent of occupational illnesses in 1980 versus 65 percent in the late 1990s. Australia, Japan, and other countries experienced dramatic increases in ergonomics problems during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Over 332,000 cases of work-related CTDs were reported in the United States in 1994. Back injuries make up roughly 27 percent of the nonfatal occupational injuries annually, and the back is the part of the body most commonly injured during work. In November 2000, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued an Ergonomics Program Standard to help control ergonomics risks at work.

Occupational Risk Factors for Ergonomic Disorders

Occupational risk factors for ergonomic injuries include high force, high repetition, awkward postures, direct trauma or contact stress from hard or sharp surfaces, prolonged exposure to cold ambient temperatures, and exposure to whole body or segmental vibration. For cumulative trauma disorders, these risk factors may be present during hand-tool use, in manufacturing assembly or packaging jobs, or while working at computer workstations. High rates of CTDs are found in manufacturing, construction, and office trades. Back injuries are most prevalent among workers involved in manual materials handling, including truck drivers, nurses and nurses aides, forklift operators, and construction workers. High rates of back injuries are also found among workers in sedentary jobs, typically associated with postural stress.

While back injuries are administratively often handled as injuries (suggesting a single traumatic exposure) experts recognize that most back injuries and CTDs develop gradually over time from a combination of wear and tear on the nervous, vascular, and connective tissues of the body. Based upon this, corporations and experts focus their prevention strategies on reducing cumulative exposures to the risk factors described above.

Strategies for Prevention

Redesigning tools or workstations to reduce the risk factors is considered to be the best approach for preventing back injuries and CTDs. Making workstations adjustable to fit the range of body sizes of workers and providing specific training in risk avoidance goals and adjustment procedures are central to prevention. For example, computer workstations that can be adjusted to optimize the height and angle of the monitor, keyboard, and chair help to reduce ergonomic risks to the extremities and back, but are effective only if employees know how to adjust them. Other steps to manage ergonomic risks include providing a system for managers and employees to work jointly toward identifying and resolving problems, employee and supervisor training on risk factors and symptoms, job hazard analysis of ergonomic risks, and proper medical surveillance and management.

(SEE ALSO: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Cumulative Trauma; Ergonomics; Occupational Safety and Health; Occupational Safety and Health Administration)

Bibliography

Bernard, B. (1997). "Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors." National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Publication No. 97–141.

— RICHARD M. LYNCH

---

Although there had been many studies into work efficiency earlier in the century, particularly in such fields as kitchen design, which underwent considerable changes in the early 20th century, the use of the term ‘ergonomics’ in connection with design was increasingly used in the decades following the end of the Second World War. Literally meaning the scientific study of the efficiency of human beings in their work environment, ergonomics was an important aspect of efficient work practices during the war. Known also as ‘human engineering’ or ‘human factors’ in the United States and ‘biotechnics’ in a number of European countries it was of increasing interest to those involved in design in industry and resulted in the establishment of numerous societies (such as the Ergonomics Research Society, established 1949), courses, and conferences around the world. Such leanings were in tune with the rise of the Design Methods movement that emerged in the later 1950s, an approach to designing that had a legacy in certain aspects of Design Management and the focus of the Design Research Society. Ergonomics also emerged in relation to the study and influence of Anthropometrics.

See also Gilbreth, Lillian; Schütte-Lihotsky, Margarete.

Study of the relationships between working humans and e.g. tools, machinery, and instrument panels to ensure the efficiency and usability of designs.

Bibliography

• Murrell (1965)
• Sanders & E. McCormick (1993)

The full bibliography for this book is available to download as a pdf file.
Download the bibliography for A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (PDF: 1.2MB)

The study of relationship between workers and their environment with particular emphasis on engineering aspects. In sport, ergonomics includes the study of designs that produce the most efficient racing cycles, canoes, and other sports equipment.

---

(ur-guh-nom-iks)

The technology concerned with the design, manufacture, and arrangement of products and environments to be safe, healthy, and comfortable for human beings.

The term is most often encountered in discussions of the design of furniture, tools, and other things built to be used by humans.

The study of efficiency of persons in their working environment, sometimes called 'human engineering'. It received its first impetus during the First World War, when the problem was to increase the productivity of semi-skilled munitions workers. This led to work by the British Medical Research Council's Industrial Health Research Board in the 1920s and 1930s on the effect of fatigue and boredom in repetitive tasks, and on the effect of the environment at work: lighting, heat and humidity, and noise. The main thrust came during the Second World War, when men in the fighting services had to handle equipment which was a lot more complex than they were used to. The obvious alternative to long and difficult training was to make the work easier.

1. Design of displays
2. Design of controls
3. Control–display compatibility
4. Layout of equipment
5. The environment at work
6. Interface between user and computer

1. Design of displays

Late in 1945, as soon as the war was over, Paul Fitts of the US Aero Medical Laboratory at Dayton, Ohio, started a comprehensive investigation of the problems facing people using the new complex equipment. He and his colleagues asked wartime pilots to describe actual experiences in which errors were made in reading and interpreting aircraft instruments. Of the 270 critical incidents reported, 40 involved a misreading of a three-handed altimeter by 1,000 feet (300 metres) or more.

An altimeter tells the pilot how high he is flying. Its three hands are covered with luminous paint. One hand is for the 10,000s, one for the 1,000s, and the third for the 100s. A bedside clock has only two luminous hands; even so, when waking up at night it is possible to confuse the minute hand and the hour hand, when the minute hand is pointing to a likely hour like 2 or 4 a.m. With three hands to confuse, the altimeter provides still greater opportunities for error. On a clear day, an error in reading the height will be realized because the pilot can see the ground below; but on a dark night, and when flying in or above cloud, the pilot has no external means of telling that he has misread his height. An investigation in the laboratory compared reading the three-handed altimeter with reading the same heights from a digital counter, like the counter showing mileage in a car. The three-handed altimeter took longer to read, an average of seven seconds, compared with about one second for the counter. It caused more errors of 1,000 feet or more, which could be fatal in an aircraft — 10 per cent compared with less than 1 per cent for the counter. Three-handed altimeters were used by the commercial airlines for another twenty years and continued to result in accidents. But they are not used now.

2. Design of controls

Fitts and his colleagues also asked the wartime pilots about errors in operating the controls of aircraft. Practically all the pilots of the US Army Air Force who were questioned reported that they sometimes made errors. Of the 460 errors reported, 89 involved confusing the three engine controls which alter the throttle, the propeller speed, and the fuel mixture. This was because the three controls were located in three different orders in three of the standard aircraft in use at the time. A pilot who was used to flying one type of aircraft was particularly likely to make an error when he changed to flying one of the other two types. As Fitts remarked: 'Imagine the difficulty most car drivers would experience in learning to brake with the left foot and to use the clutch pedal with the right.' In aircraft the error can be serious if just after take-off the pilot inadvertently reduces the throttle or mixture, when he intends to reduce the propeller speed. Yet pilots are trained not to look at the controls they are operating: they have to look at their instruments, and at the world outside the aircraft. They should not need to look to see if they are operating the correct control.

These and other reports of confusion between the controls of aircraft also led to laboratory investigations. One question investigated was the distance between controls needed to prevent a person from operating the wrong control. Another was the shape of control knobs needed, so that each could easily be identified and distinguished by touch. Following this work, the controls in aircraft are now separated and shaped to avoid confusion, and they are located in approximately the same position in each new type of aircraft. (See also transfer.)

3. Control–display compatibility

Of the 460 pilot errors reported in operating controls, 27 involved moving the control in the direction opposite to that required to produce the desired result. Some of these moves would have been in the correct direction if the pilot had been in his accustomed type of aircraft, and they are avoided by standardizing controls between aircraft. But other errors involved moving the control in the 'natural' or 'expected' direction, which happened to be wrong.

This finding led Fitts to his principle of 'control–display compatibility'. The most compatible control is the display marker itself. In setting the minute hand of a clock, the minute hand is clasped directly with the fingers and rotated to the desired time. The nearer the control–display relationship can approximate to this, the easier it will be for the person operating the control. If the clock hand is controlled by a knob or key, the control should rotate in the same direction as the clock hand, not in the reverse direction. Where a number of instrument displays and their controls are located on a single panel, each control should be next to its display. The controls should not be mounted on a separate panel far away from their displays, or the person may operate the wrong control in error.

4. Layout of equipment

The investigations of displays and controls led naturally to investigations of the optimal layout for a set of displays and their related controls. People have to be able to see the displays and to reach the controls. Yet people come in different sizes: from anthropometry, the systematic measurement of body heights and lengths of limb segments, it became clear that seats must be adjustable, both in height and in the distance from the working surfaces. With adjustable seats, most displays and controls are now located in positions suited to the people who use them. The strength of the limbs operating controls in various positions has also been measured, to ensure that a control in a particular position is not too stiff to operate.

The layout of individual workplaces is now often part of the overall layout of a control room or factory department. Since equipment has to be maintained as well as operated, it is necessary to leave space behind the consoles for the maintenance engineers. The time spent maintaining equipment may be small compared with that during which it is operated but, when equipment breaks down, it is inconvenient, expensive, or in the case of military equipment unacceptable if repairs cannot be carried out quickly. Thus maintenance needs have to be considered in design, as well as the needs of operatives.

In planning a factory department, the ergonomist now usually considers the organization of the work to be done. Some functions can be performed automatically, while others require people. The layout of the machines and work stations is made to follow the sequence of operations to be carried out.

5. The environment at work

Equipment sometimes needs to be designed especially for the environment in which it is to be used. Driving farm tractors and harvesters over rough fields subjects both the driver and the equipment to vertical vibration and jolting. The vibration blurs the numbers on the instrument scales, and so they have to be larger than usual if they are to be read easily. The jolting may make the driver move a control accidentally: the chances of this happening may be reduced if the controls move horizontally — that is, at right angles to the vertical jolting.

It is particularly important for the equipment which a person is using in a noisy environment to be designed ergonomically. In quiet surroundings a person can usually hear when he is operating equipment correctly: switches may produce audible clicks when they are pressed, and the tap of a hammer has a higher pitch when it hits a nail or rivet than when it misses and hits wood or canvas. In noisy surroundings such cues may not be audible, or may be difficult to distinguish one from another. If in operating equipment a person has to use his eyes, or sense of touch, instead of his ears, and if these senses are already heavily engaged, he may fail to notice mistakes.

The medical problems of the environment at work are now giving ergonomics a new impetus. Loud noise causes industrial deafness, as well as masking sounds, and calls for noise control and hearing protection. Vehicles and aircraft crashing at speed cause injuries that call for better designs of safety harness and seat belts. Work under water, say on oil and gas installations, is carried out at pressures several times greater than atmospheric pressure, and requires foolproof equipment (see also diver performance). Industrial processes produce dusts, vapours, and gases which may cause cancer or other illnesses. Ionizing radiation, and electromagnetic radiation of short wavelength, like gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, and the microwaves used in cooking, can also damage the human organism. Dosimeters have to be designed and worn. The more generally harmful effects of atmospheric pollution need to be reduced by changes in industrial activity. Ergonomists today require knowledge of chemistry and physics in addition to their traditional knowledge of displays and controls.

6. Interface between user and computer

Research has now expanded to study the interface between people and computers. At first a computer system was considered acceptable as long as it worked. To use the system, the operator had to learn to think like the computer engineers who designed the system. The few full-time computer operators learnt to do this, but it was too difficult for many of the non-specialists who wanted to use a computer to help them with their job. Research is now directed towards designing 'user-friendly' interfaces, which are easy for the part-time and casual user to learn and use (Card, Moran, and Newell 1983).

(Published 1987)

— E. C. Poulton

Bibliography
• Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human–Computer Interaction.
• Fitts, P. M., and Jones, R. E. (1947). '(i) Analysis of factors contributing to 460 "pilot-error" experiences in operating aircraft controls; (ii) Psychological aspects of instrument display: analysis of 270 "pilot-error" experiences in reading and interpreting aircraft instruments'. Reprinted in Sinaiko, H. W. (ed.), Selected Papers on Human Factors in the Design and Use of Control Systems (1961).
• Parker, J. F., Jr., and West, V. R. (eds.) (1973). Bioastronautics Data Book (2nd edn.).
• Poulton, E. C. (1979). The Environment at Work.
• Van Cott, H. P., and Kinkade, R. G. (eds.) (1972). Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design (rev. edn.).

---

The activity or science of designing, building, or equipping mechanical devices or artificial environments to the anthropometric, physiological, or psychological requirements of the men and women who will use them.

---

The science of relating the physiological and anatomical characteristics of the working or racing animal to the physical aspects of its working environment.

n

The field of science including all aspects pertaining to a comparison of the mental and physical exhaustion produced to the quantity and quality of the deliverable care.

For a list of words related to ergonomics, see:

• Activities and Treatments - ergonomics: study or practice of adapting working environment to needs of body
• Schools and Doctrines - ergonomics: study of adjustment to environment, esp. in workplace

---

See words rhyming with "ergonomist."

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - ergonomi

Nederlands (Dutch)
ergonomie

Français (French)
n. - ergonomie

Deutsch (German)
n. - Ergonomie (Studie über die Arbeitseffizienz von Menschen), %

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - εργονομία, βιοτεχνολογία

Italiano (Italian)
ergonomia

Português (Portuguese)
n. - ergonomia (f)

Русский (Russian)
эргономика

Español (Spanish)
n. - ergonomía

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - ergonomi

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
人类工程学, 人体工学

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. pl. - 人類工程學, 人體工學
n. - 人類工程學, 人體工學

한국어 (Korean)
n. pl. - 인간 공학
n. - 생물공학

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 人間工学

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) علم البيئه‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. pl. - ‮חקר פיריון העבודה, ארגונומיקה‬
n. - ‮חקר פיריון העבודה‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.