Distinguishing user’s different fingers on touch screen: method, application and user acceptance assessment

References

• Lee KW, Lee YC. Design and validation of an improved graphical user interface with the tool ball. Appl Ergon. 2012;43:57–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackstone JM, Karr C, Camp C, et al. Physical exposure differences between children and adults when using standard and small computer input devices. Ergonomics. 2008;51:872–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang YH, Wang CH, Liang HW, et al. Validation of a recording system for computer pointing device activity. Inter J Ind Ergon. 2009;39:681–688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee YH, Su MC. Design and validation of a desk-free and posture independent input device. Appl Ergon. 2008;39:399–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KW, Lee YC. Design and validation of a virtually multiple mouse wheels. Inter J Ind Ergon. 2010;40:392–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim YH, Lee JH. Game interface enhancement under smartphone platform focused on touchscreen interaction. Comp Ind Eng. 2015;80:45–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanimura M, Ueno T. Smartphone user interface. Fujitsu Sci Techn J. 2013;49:227–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marquardt N, Kiemer J, Greenberg S, What caused that touch? Expressive interaction with a surface through fiduciary-tagged gloves. ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, Saarbrücken, Germany, 139–142 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Fabo MP Extension of human computer interaction while using touch based interfaces. PhD thesis. Comenius University, Slovak Republic (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Lepinski GJ, Grossman T, Fitzmaurice G, “The design and evaluation of multitouch marking menus,” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA,  2233–2242 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Chiou JS, Shen CC. The antecedents of online financial service adoption: the impact of physical banking services on Internet banking acceptance. Behaviour Inf Technol. 2012;31:851–871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13:319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr MP, Knott DS, Moss MA, et al. Assessing the value of human factors initiatives. Appl Ergon. 2008;39:305–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Heijden, van der Heijden H. Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Inf Manage. 2003;40:541–549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du J, Lu J, Wu L, et al. User acceptance of software as a service: evidence from customers of China’s leading e-commerce company Alibaba. J Syst Software. 2013;86:2034–2044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu IL, Chen JL. An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: an empirical study. Inter J Human Comp Stud. 2005;62:784–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser HF. The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1958;23:187–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerlinger FN. Formation of Behavior Research. Chicago: Holt, Rinchart and Winston Inc; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally J. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson EG. Design patterns for user interface for mobile applications. Adv Eng Software. 2009;40:1318–1328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun H, Zhang P. The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Inter J Hum Comp Stud. 2006;64:73–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27:425–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bystrom JU, Hansson GA, Rylander L, et al. Physical workload on neck and upper limb using two CAD applications. Appl Ergon. 2002;33:63–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook C, Burgess-Limerick R, Chang S. The prevalence of neck and upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms in computer mouse users. Inter J Ind Ergon. 2000;26:347–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flodgren G, Heide M, Lyskov E, et al. Characterization of a laboratory model of computer mouse use: applications for studying risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders. Appl Ergon. 2007;38:213–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu X, Toivonen R, Takala EP. Exploring time-dependent symptom outcomes in office staff. Hum Factor Ergon Manufactur Serv Ind. 2009;19:241–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson M, Amick BC, DeRango K, et al. The effects of an office ergonomics training and chair intervention on worker knowledge, behavior and musculoskeletal risk. Appl Ergon. 2009;40:124–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toomingas A, Gavhed D. Workstation layout and work postures at call centres in Sweden in relation to national law, EU-directives and ISO-standards, and to operators’ comfort and symptoms. Inter J Ind Ergon. 2008;38:1051–1061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jobs, et al., 2008. Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics. US Patent No.7,479,949.
   Google Scholar
• Lin A. The acceptance and use of a business-to-business information system. Inter J Inf Manage. 2006;26:386–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar