This article was downloaded by: [betsy peralta]

On: 24 April 2013, At: 14:36

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

A I I E Transactions
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uiie19

Arm Motions in the Horizontal Plane

a b c
Stephan A. Konz , Carl E. Jeans & Ranveer S. Rathore
a
Kansas State University,
b
Kansas State University,
c
Kansas State University,
Version of record first published: 09 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Stephan A. Konz , Carl E. Jeans & Ranveer S. Rathore (1969): Arm Motions in the Horizontal Plane, A I I E
Transactions, 1:4, 359-370

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/05695556908974721

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Arm Motions in the Horizontal Plane
STEPHAN A. KONZ, Associate Member, AIIE
Kansas State University
CARL E. JEANS, Associate Member, AIIE
Kansas State University
RANVEER S. RATHORE, Associate Member, APIE
Kansas State University
Abstract: The principles of motion economy, "Motions of the
arms should be made in opposite and symmetrical directions,
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013
and should be made simultaneously," and, "Eye fixations
should be as few and as close together as possible," are
evaluated. The two principles are replaced with five principles:
1. For one-hand motions, movements which pivot about the
elbow are preferred to movements which pivot about the
shoulder. 2. For one-hand motions, movements with the
preferred hand are more desirable than movements with the
non-preferred hand. 3. Two-hand motions are preferred to
one-hand motions. 4. For two-hand motions, simultaneous
motions are preferred to alternating motions. 5. For two-hand
simultaneous motions, a pattern which minimizes eye fixa-
tions is preferred.
Frank Gilbreth (Reference 17) first stated as a prin-
ciple of motion economy:
When work is done with two hands simultaneously, it can be
done quickest and with least mental effort, particularly if the
work is done by both hands in a similar manner, that is to say,
when one hand makes the same motions to the right as the
other does to the left.
Barnes (3) made it more concise: "Motions of the arms
should be made in opposite and symmetrical directions,
and should be made simultaneously."
On the other hand, Barnes also stated: "Eye fixations
should be as few and as close together as possible."
Which principle has precedence?
Barnes and his co-workers (2), (4)) (5), (6), (7) and (8)
had made an outstanding series of studies on motion
economy which Barnes used to formulate his famous
principles of motion economy. The only study bearing
directly on the above principles, however, was Bulletin
17 (6) in 1939. Bulletin 21 (7) demonstrated that pro-
ductivity with two hands was greater than with one hand.
Barnes and Mundel (6) had each of 10 students posi-
tion an electrode in a hole 3600 times under each of four
conditions (zero will hereafter be defined as "three
o'clock") : zero degrees for the right hand and 180 degrees
for the left hand, 30 and 150, 60 and 120, and 90 and 90.
December 1969 AIIE Transactions
The least errors were made a t 90 and 90 degrees. For
movements of a slide in a groove, for which no visual
control was required, the best condition was 0 and 180
for the four fastest operators, but for the overall group it
was 60 and 120 degrees.
Barnes never published a formal study of: one hand at
at various angles; two-hand simultaneous and symmetri-
cal versus two-hand simultaneous but nonsymmetrical
motions; two-hand simultaneous motions versus two-
hand nonsimultaneous motions; and two-hand simul-
taneous and parallel motions versus two-hand simulta-
neous and symmetrical motions. This paper reports the
results of experiments considering these hand motions.
Since 1940, there have been a number of studies of one-
hand motions at various angles ( l l ) , (12), (13), (19), and
(23). These and others are reported in more detail by
Konz (19). In general, they concluded that angle does
affect the speed and accuracy of movements, and that
movements which pivot about the elbow are faster and
more accurate than movements which pivot about the
shoulder. For right-hand movements, the best angle is
somewhere between 10 and 60 degrees. When close eye-
hand coordination is required, the best angle seems to be
between 30 and 60; when relatively inaccurate move-
ments can be made, the best angle is between 10 and 30.
Since 1940, there also have been a number of studies of
two-hand motions. Nichols (20) studied four conditions:
single-hand motions, simultaneous and symmetrical
motions, nonsimultaneous and symmetrical motions, and
simultaneous and nonsymmetrical motions. Using in-
crease in heart rate as a criterion, he concluded the follow-
ing: For an equal amount of work performed, one-hand
motions have a smaller increase in heart rate than non-
simultaneous but symmetrical two-hand motions; and,
for an equal amount of work performed, two-hand simul-
taneous and symmetrical motions have a smaller increase
in heart rate than two-hand simultaneous but nonsym-
metrical motions.
359
 Reichard (22) contrasted parallel versus symmetrical
patterns for simultaneous motions. For the three subjects
studied, he concluded that simultaneous parallel motions
could be completed in 8 percent less time and with 31.3
percent less eye movements than simultaneous symmetri-
cal motions. Parallel movements to the right were better
than parallel movements to the left.
Bouisset, Henon, Monod, and Laville (9), (10) investi-
gated two-hand simultaneous and symmetrical motions
at: 1. 90 degrees and 15 cm. (6 inches), 2. 90 degrees and
30 cm. (12 inches), and 3. 30 to 150 degrees and 30 cm.
(12 inches). Using Mueller's method of contrasting the
sum of the heart beats above the basal level, they found
that Condition 2 was worse than Conditions 1and 3, but
that Conditions 1 and 3 were equivalent. They concluded
that the additional six inches of Condition 2 over Condi-
tion 1caused the extra heart beats. The extra six inches of
distance apparently increased heart rate as much as shift-
ing the angle from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. Note that
in this study, as in Barnes and Mundel's (6), when visual
control requirements are low, the optimum angle does not
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013
seem to be 90 degrees.
EXPERIMENT ONE
A study (18) made a t Kansas State University used
output of a force platform as the criterion to determine the
effect of (a) two-hand simultaneous and symmetrical
versus two-hand simultaneous and nonsymmetrical mo-
tions, and (b) two-hand simultaneous motions versus
two-hand nonsimultaneous motions.
The subjects moved a two-pound weight in each hand
between two specified points, as illustrated in Figure 1.
In Condition A, the subject's hands moved simulta-
neously and symmetrically from points A and B to points
C and D. In Condition B, the hands moved simulta-
neously but nonsymmetrically. The left hand followed
path AE where E was located 16 degrees counterclock-
Figure 1. The three experimental conditions
of Experiment One.
3 60 AIIE Transactions
wise from C. The right hand moved at an angle of 53 de-
grees while the left hand moved at an angle of 143 degrees.
In Condition C (alternating and symmetrical), the hands
moved along the same paths as Condition A but in an
alternating manner; that is, the right hand was at D while
the left hand was at A, and then the right hand moved
inward while the left hand moved outward and vice-
versa. In all three conditions, the distance moved was 18
inches.
A force platform measured the combined static and
dynamic forces in the three coordinate orthogonal planes.
Physiological cost, in this experiment, was defined as the
amount of force exerted for a given time and was mea-
sured in units of pound-seconds. Readings were taken of
the costs exerted in each plane when the subject "touched
down" on each black circle. The pound-seconds for each
axis were added arithmetically to obtain the total cost.
The three conditions can be done in six possible se-
quences; three subjects followed each of the six sequences.
Each subject performed three sets of five trials for each
condition. Within each sequence, the sets were counter-
balanced to counteract the effects of fatigue and learning.
The subjects were paced by a metronome set at 66 clicks
per minute to eliminate pace as a variable.
The analysis of variance was based on Snedecor's
"Model I" design, a treatment by subject analysis with
a single case for each factor combination. For significant
sources of variation, Duncan's '(New Multiple Range
Test" was used to test for differences between means.
Eighteen female undergraduates with an average age
of 21.9 years (range 18 to 281, an average height of 64.5
inches (range 62 to 68), and an average weight of 125
pounds (range 107 to 160) were paid $1 per hour.
From the analysis of variance of the total cost for the
three axes, it was concluded that the physiological cost of
Condition A (2.33 pound-seconds) was significantly
(p<.05) less than that of Condition C (2.62 pound-
seconds); that is, simultaneous and symmetrical motions
are better than alternating and symmetrical motions.
This conclusion agreed with the literature.
However, Condition A (2.33 pound-seconds) had sig-
nificantly ( p < .05) greater costs than Condition B (2.11
pound-seconds). For this motion pattern, simultaneous
and nonsymmetrical was better than simultaneous and
symmetrical. This finding did not agree with the litera-
ture.
Outward motions (1.39 pound-seconds) had more cost
than inward motions (1.2,5 pound-seconds). This did not
agree with the results of Wu (19).
The case of outward versus inward motions seems to be
a problem. Since the results of this experiment contradict
Volume I No. 4
 those of another experiment performed in the same labo-
ratory on the same equipment (although the other task
was done with one hand while this was done with two
hands), a reasonable conclusion is that more investiga-
tion needs to be done.
The conclusion that nonsymmetrical motions may,
in some cases, be better than symmetrical motions was
unexpected. Note, however, that this was not a visually
directed task and that the left hand was moving at a lower
cost angle (143 degrees) than in the symmetrical condi-
tion (left hand at 127 degrees).
Therefore, it was decided to explore hand-arm motions
in greater detail (21).
EXPERIMENT TWO
TASK
The subjects made repetitive motions between outer
targets (1-inch diameter) and inner targets (3.5-inch
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013
diameter). See Figure 2. The angles were 0, 30, 60, 90,
120, 150, and 180 degrees; the three o'clock position was
referred to as 0 degrees. The worktable was adjustable
and was set one inch below the standing subject's elbow
(19). The centers of the inner targets were located five
inches from the front edge of the worktable (3). In order
to study the effect of distance on single-hand movements,
the distances moved were 9 and 16 inches. Single-hand
motions with both the left and right hands were made for
all seven angles and both distances. The subjects set their
own pace to allow the largest number of accurate hits
within the l&second trial interval.
To study simuItaneous hand motions, the angle be-
tween the hands was studied at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150,
and 180 degrees of spread for angles from 0 to 180. For
zero spread, there were seven conditions; for 30-degree
spread, there were six conditions; for 60-degree spread,
there were five conditions; for 90degree spread, there
were four; for 120-degree,there were three; for 150-degree,
there were two; and for 180-degree spread, there was one
condition-28 conditions in all. The conditions were
designated by two-letter codes, the first letter indicating
the direction of movement for the left hand and the
second letter, the right hand. Tables 1and 2 indicate the
sequence of spreads. Different randomized sequences for
each operator and replication were used to counter-
balance fatigue and learning. For her replication, each
subject reversed the sequence of her first set of trials.
A formal set of introductory instructions was given to
the subjects although the complete objective of the ex-
periment was not explained to them to reduce the possibil-
ity of bias. A practice session was given to each subject
for one set of trials before beginning each part of the
experiment. She was told her response scores and errors
after completing each trial during the practice session.
This was to motivate her to perform at her best and to
enable her to adjust her hand movements for the max-
December 1969 AIIE Tra~
Figure 2. The apparatus used in Experiment Two.
imum accuracy and speed. There was a five-minute rest
period between trials.
The statistical model was a four-factor, twice repli-
cated, completely randomized mixed factorial design. The
criteria were: hits on the outer target per l&second trial,
misses on the outer target per l&second trial, average
speed of movement in inches per second, and information
processed in bits per second.
Average speed was calculated by totaling hits plus
misses and dividing by the 18-second trial period to get
movements per second. For simultaneous motions, the
total hits and misses of both hands was divided by two.
Then this was multiplied by 18 or 32 inches per move-
ment.
Fitts (15), (16) combined speed and accuracy into one
index, bits per seconds. The basic concept was that any
movement was really limited by the amount of informa-
tion to be processed. Shannon (24) had defined informa-
tion in terms of a signal to noise ratio transmitted from
a transmitter over a channel to a receiver. Since the ratio
was logarithmic and logz has customarily been used, the
unit of information commonly has been called bit, short
for binary digit. Fitts proposed that the distance of the
move A was akin to the signal and that the width of the
target W was akin to noise. He then demonstrated ex-
perimentally that movement time for hand-arm motions
can be predicted well if the information of the task is
defined as:
A
I (bits) = logz--,
w/2
where
A =Amplitude of movement
W = Width of target.
The validity of this formula has been substantiated by
other investigators in other laboratories (1) (14) (25).
The 9-inch movement required 4.17 bits for the move-
ment to the outer 1-inch diameter target plus 2.37 bits
for the movement to the inner 3.5-inch diameter target,
 Table 1:Sequence of experimental conditions for single-hand motions
Subject Repetition Conditions (Angles) a n d Distances

1. (i) X-A Y-B Y-c X-D X-E Y-F Y-G X-G X-F Y-E Y-D X-c X-B Y-A
(ii) Y-A X-B X-C Y-D Y-E X-F X-G Y-G Y-F X-E X-D Y-C Y-B X-A

2. (i) Y-B X-C X-D Y-E Y-F X-G X-A Y-A Y-G X-F X-E Y-D Y-C X-B
(ii) X-B Y-C Y-D X-E X-F Y-G Y-A X-A X-G Y-F Y-E X-D X-C Y-B

3. (i) X-C Y-D Y-E X-F X-G Y-A Y-B X-B X-A Y-G Y-F X-E X-D Y-C
(ii) Y-C X-D X-E Y-F Y-G X-A X-B Y-B Y-A X-G X-F Y-E Y-D X-C

4. (i) Y-D X-E X-F Y-G Y-A X-B X-C Y-C Y-B X-A X-G Y-F Y-E X-D
(ii) X-D Y-E Y-F X-G X-A Y-B Y-C X-C X-B Y-A Y-G X-F X-E Y-D

5. (i) X-E Y-F Y-G X-A X-B Y-C Y-D X-D X-C Y-B Y-A X-G X-F Y-E
(ii) Y-E X-F X-G Y-A Y-B X-C X-D Y-D Y-C X-B X-A Y-G Y-F X-E

6. (i) Y-F X-G X-A Y-B Y-C X-D X-E Y-E Y-D X-C X-B Y-A Y-G X-F
(ii) X-F Y-G Y-A X-B X-C Y-D Y-E X-E X-D Y-C Y-B X-A X-G Y-I?
7. (i) X-G Y-A Y-B X-C X-D Y-E Y-F X-F X-E Y-D Y-C X-B X-A Y-G
(ii) Y-G X-A X-B Y-C Y-D X-E X-F Y-F Y-E X-D X-C Y-B Y-A X-G
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013

Where
A-0 degrees D-90 degrees G-180
B-30 degrees E--120 degrees X-9 inches
6 6 0 degrees F-150 degrees Y-16 inches

or 6.54 bits per movement. There are 8.19 bits per move-
ment for the 16-inch movement.
Defining a movement was a problem since, in theory,
a miss means less information was processed. How much
less is difficult to decide so both hits plus misses were
considered as movements. For simultaneous motions,
bits for each hand were totaled. Thus the bits per second
that the subjects' brain-eye-muscle system processed
could be estimated.
Seven right-handed female subjects with an average
age of 18.8 years (range 17 to 22), an average height of
64.6 inches (range 62 to 68), and an average elbow height
while standing of 39.8 inches (range 38 to 43) were paid
by the hour.
FOR SINGLE,RIGHT-HAND
RESULTS MOTIONS
Data is provided in Tables 3 and 4. When hits were
analyzed, the main effects of subjects, angles, and dis-
tances, as well as the subject Xdistance interaction, were
all significant (p <.01). The difference in performance
from the best angle to the worst angle (Table 4) was 8
percent. For the right hand, movements to the right were
best, and movements across the body to the left were
worst.
Figure 3 shows the percent of the movements that
missed the target for each angle. From the curve, they
missed about 5 percent of the time at the best angle and
10 percent a t the worst angle. The least misses were made
with cross-body movements.
As can be calculated from Table 3, the average speed
of movement at 16 inches, 50.7 inches per second, is 141
percent of the speed at 9 inches, 35.9. Since the ratio of
16 to 9 is 179 percent, and acceleration and deceleration
form a larger proportion of the shorter move, the data
agrees with the literature. Note also that angle does affect
speed. The slowest movements were at 180 degrees for
both distances, but the fastest movements were at 0 and
30 degrees for 9 inches and 30 and 60 degrees for 16 inches.
Movements a t the best angles were approximately 18
percent faster than a t the worst angles. The overall
speed was 43.3 inches per second.
Speed also can be expressed in bits per second. The
formula is designed to compensate for the effect of dis-
tance so that, in theory, the bits per second should be
the same for both distances. Comparing the rates for the
same angle in Table 3, it seems that the formula does, in
practice, compensate for distance. The average rate is
12.9 bits per second. The effect of angle is not included
in the formula, but perhaps it should be.
FOR SINGLE,
RESULTS LEFT-HAND
MOTIONS
Data is provided in Tables 5 and 6. When hits were
analyzed, the main effects of subjects, angles, and dis-
tances were all significant (p < .01). The difference in
performance from the best angle to the worst angle
(Table 6) was 8 percent. For the left hand, movements to
the left were best, and movements across the body to the
right were worst.
Figure 3, the misses made a t each angle, indicates that

362 AIIE Transactions Volume I No. 4

 Conditions (Angles) and Distance
-
X-1 Y-2 Y-3 X-4 X-5 Y-6 Y-7 X-7 X-6 Y-5 Y-4 x-3 x-2 Y-1
Y-1 x-2 X-3 Y-4 Y-5 X-6 X-7 Y-7 Y-6 X-5 x-4 Y-3 Y-2 x-1

Y-2 X-3 X-4 Y-5 Y-6 X-7 X-1 Y-1 Y-7 X-6 X-5 Y-4 Y-3 X-2
X-2 Y-3 Y-4 x-5 X-6 Y-7 Y-1 X-1 X-7 Y-6 Y-5 x-4 x-3 Y-2

X-3 Y-4 Y-5 X-6 X-7 Y-1 Y-2 X-2 X-1 Y-7 Y-6 X-5 X-4 Y-3
Y-3 X-4 X-5 Y-6 Y-7 X-1 X-2 Y-2 Y-1 X-7 X-6 Y-5 Y-4 X-3

Y-4 X-5 X-6 Y-7 Y-1 X-2 X-3 Y-3 Y-2 X-1 X-7 Y-6 Y-5 X-4
X-4 Y-5 Y-6 X-7 X-1 Y-2 Y-3 X-3 X-2 Y-1 Y-7 X-6 X-5 Y-4

X-5 Y-6 Y-7 X-1 X-2 Y-3 Y-4 X-4 X-3 Y-2 Y-1 X-7 X-6 Y-5
Y-5 X-6 X-7 Y-1 Y-2 X-3 X-4 Y-4 Y-3 X-2 X-1 Y-7 Y-6 X-5

Y-6 X-7 X-1 Y-2 Y-3 X-4 X-5 Y-5 Y-4 X-3 X-2 Y-1 Y-7 X-6
X-6 Y-7 Y-1 X-2 X-3 Y-4 Y-5 X-5 X-4 Y-3 Y-2 x-1 x-7 Y-6

X-7 Y-1 X-2 X-3 X-4 Y-5 Y-6 X-6 x-5 Y-4 Y-3 x-2 x-1 Y-7
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013

Y-7 X-1 X-2 Y-3 Y-4 X-5 X-6 Y-6 Y-5 X-4 x-3 Y-2 Y-1 x-7

1- 0 degrees Spread-AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG.

2- 30 degrees Spread-A3, BC, CD, DE, EF, FG.
3- 60 degrees Spread-AC, BD, CE, DF, EG.
4- 90 degrees Spread-AD, BE, CF, DG.
5-120 degrees Spread-AE, BF, CG.
6-150 degrees Spread-AF, BG.
7-180 degrees Spread-AG.
X-Distance- 9 inches.
Y-Distance-16 inches.

Table 3: Mean results by angle for the right hand in single-hand motions

Angles
Distance
Criterion in inches
A@") B(30°) C(60°) D(90°) E(120°) F(150°) G(180°)
Mean hits on outer 9 34.65 35.92 34.85 35.28 34.65 32.50 30.57
target per 18 seconds 16 25.65 26.28 28.28 2'7.21 25.50 24.57 24.15

Mean misses per 9 2.57 2.57 2.07 1.71 1.07 1.21 1.65
18 seconds 16 3.50 3.85 2.50 2.57 1.85 1.78 2.07

Average speed, 9 37.22 38.49 36.92 36.99 35.72 33.71 32.22

inches per second 16 51.79 53.54 54.70 52.92 48.60 46.82 46.59

Index of performance, 9 13.52 12.68 13.41 13.44 12.98 12.25 11.71

bits per second 16 13.26 13.71 14.00 13.55 12.44 11.99 11.93

Table 4: Mean hits for the right hand in single-hand mo-

tions. (Hits underlined by the same line are not signifi-
cantly (a<.05) different. Hits for 9 and 16 inches totaled.)
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Angle 60 30 90 0 120 150 180
Hits 63.13 62.20 61.56 60.30 60.15 57.07 54.72

--

December 1969 AIIE Transactions

 Angles

A(OO) B(30°) C(60°) D(90°) E)120°) F(150°) G(180°)

2. The movements at most angles for the nine-inch

tions. (Hits underlined by the same line are not signifi- movement were made exclusively from the elbow. In
cantly (a<.05) dserent. Hits for 9 and 16 inches totaled.) contrast, 16-inch movements in most cases began at the
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013

elbow, were taken up by the shoulder, and were finished

Angles 90 120 150 180
by the wrist.
Hits 55.28 54.65 53.85 52.14 51.48 49.06 48.71 3. Maximum speed and maximum accuracy seemed
incompatible. The subjects concentrated on one or the
other of these goals. The subjects did not maintain con-
sistent speeds for each trial and usually stated that they
were not aware of the change in attention until after it
had been made. For the 9-inch movement, the subjects
often started with maximum speed but changed to less
the subjects missed the target about 10 percent of the speed and more accuracy while for the 16-inch movement,
time at the best angle and about 14 percent at the worst
angle. As with the right hand, the least misses were made
with cross-body movements.
As can be calculated from Table 5, the average speed
of movement at 16 inches, 46.2, is 143percent of the speed
a t 9 inches, 32.1. This is compatible with the results from
the right hand (Table 3) commented on above. As with
the right hand, angle does affect speed. Again the slowest
movements were to the opposite side. The fastest move-
ments were to 90 degrees for 9 inches and 150 degrees for
16 inches. Movements at the best angles were approxi-
mately 16 percent faster than at the worst angles; this
again is compatible with the results for the right hand.
The overall speed was 39.2 inches per second. Expressing
this speed in other units, the average for the left hand
(Table 5) was 11.7 bits per second.

I When the hits of the left and right hand were compared
(Table 4 versus 6), the right hand was superior. This is
compatible with Experiment One and the literature.
Accuracy of the right hand (Figure 3) was also higher.
Some general observations were :
1. Many of the subjects tended to lean their bodies in 0 30 60 90 120 150 leo
I
the direction of movement even though this was not ANGLE, DEGREES
necessary and the subjects had been requested not to Figure 3. The effect of angle on accuracy
move their body. for one-hand motions.

1 364 AIIE Transactions Volume I No. 4

 they started accurately but changed to attempt maximum
speed.
RESULTS
FOR SIMULTANEOUS
HANDMOTIONS
When hits were anaIyzed, the main effects of subjects,
angles, distances, hands, and the interactions of subject
distance, subject times hands, and angle hands were all
significant ( p < .01).
Tables 7 and 8 summarize the hits for each distance.
From Table 9, the very best combination was zero spread
between the hands with an angle of 90 degrees; worst
was 150 degrees spread with the right hand at 30 degrees
and the left hand at 180 degrees. In general, for this
visually directed task, the less spread, the better the
performance. At any particular degree of spread, move-
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013
0 degrees E E
30 degrees C D
90 degrees A D
December 1969 AIIE Transactions
ment ahead was preferable to movement to the sides; if
movement had to be made to the side, then movements
to the right were better than movements to the left.
I t seems more important to minimize the degree of spread
between the two hands than to be concerned whether the move-
ments are symmetrical. However, for the two situations
where spread was held constant and symmetrical motions
were possible (60 and 120 degrees), symmetrical motions
were better than nonsymmetrical.
The total misses for both the left and right hand for
both the 9- and 16-inch condition are given in Table 10.
As can be seen, the degree of spread is the controlling
variable just as it was for hits (Table 9). Within spreads,
movement ahead was preferable to movements to the
sides; if movement had to be made to the side, then move-
365
 0 degrees E E
D D 22.21
30 degrees E F
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013
120 degrees B F
150 degrees A F
180 degrees A G 13.43 13.21 26.64
n~entsto the right were better than movements to the
left for 0 and 30 degrees of spread. For more spread,
everything is bad. As with hits, there is little evidence
that it makes any difference whether the motion is sym-
metrical or nonsymmetrical; the degree of spread is the
controlling variable.
Table 2 gives the ratio of misses to hits for the various
conditions of simultaneous motions. Use of a sign test
indicates, as expected, that the 9-inch movements are
made significantly (p < .01) more accurately than 16-
inch movements. To compare right versus left, when the
spread is held constant and the angles are mirrored (that
is, compare 60 degrees for the right hand versus 120 de-
grees for the left), there are 56 pairs. The error rate was
higher for the right hand on 53 of the 56 pairs; thus,
somewhat surprisingly, the right hand was significantly
(p < .01) less accurate in two-hand motions. Figure 3 had
366 AIIE Transactions
8.21 8.93 17.14 39.4 20.1
shown that the right hand was more accurate for one-hand
motions. It is expected that the eyes and brain have con-
centrated on their most difficult task (the left hand) and
ignored the right hand.
The average speed of movement a t 9 inches (Table 7)
was 29.4 inches per second; the average speed at 16 inches
(Table 8) was 40.9. The ratio is 139 percent, which is
consistent with the ratio of 141 percent for the right hand
alone (Table 3) and 143 percent for the left hand alone
(Table 5).
The average speed a t 9 inches of the right hand alone
was 35.9 inches per second, of the left hand alone 32.1,
and with both hands 29.4. The average speed at 16 inches
of the right hand alone was 50.7, of the left hand alone
46.2, and with both hands 40.9. Thus simultaneous mo-
tions slowed down the right hand 23 percent and the left
hand 11 percent.
Volume I No. 4
 Table 9: Mean hits for both hands in simultaneous motions when arranged by amount
of spread. (Hits underlined by the same line are not significantly
(a<.05) different. Hits for 9 and 16 inches totaled.)

Spread
0 degree Rank 1 2 3 4 5 7 9
Angles D D E E C C B B F F A A G G
Scores 98.78 97.78 96.00 92.57 90.14 85.21 81.93
- -
30 degree Rank 6 8 10 11 12 15
Angles C D D E B C E F A B F G
Scores 86.86 82.14 81.78 81.78 79.28 75.42
- -

60 degree Rank 13 14 16 17 18
Angles C E B D A C E G D F
Scores 77.57 76.14 75.21 74.50 74.21

90 degree Rank 20 21 22 24
Angles C F B E A D D G
Scores 72.93 72.50 70.28 69.50
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013

120 degree Rank 19 23 26

Angles B F C G A E
Scores 73.57 70.28 67.93
-
150 degree Rank 25 28
Angles A F B G
Scores 68.86 64.57
- -
180 degree Rank 27
Angles A G
Scores 65.86

Key: A = 0 degrees, B =30 degrees, C = 60 degrees, D = 90 degrees, E = 120 degrees, F = 190 degrees, and G = 180 degrees

When the speed is expressed in bits per second, the
formula compensates for the effect of distance. The
average was 21.4 bits per second for 9 inches and 20.9
for 16 inches or a combined average of 21.2. When the
right hand worked alone, an average of 12.9 bits per
second was processed, and when the left hand worked
alone, it was 11.7. Thus, when both hands worked at the
same time, almost twice as much information was pro-
cessed. If it is assumed that the person is processing infor-
mation at his maximum rate in each condition, why is the
rate not the same for all three conditions?
If it is hypothesized that the 23.0 bits per second (max-
imum of Tables 7 and 8) is the maximum brain-eye-
muscle system output, then the reduction in output due
to the targets being in different visual fields can be estab-
lished from the maximum difference between conditions
within Tables 7 and 8. This differencewas 2.9 bits.
There are two estimates of the reduction due to the use
of the right hand instead of both hands; the average of
Table 7 minus the average for 9 inches for the right hand
(Table 3), or 21.4-12.9 =8.3 bits per second, and the
average of Table 8 minus the average for 16 inches for the
right hand (Table 3)) or 20.8 - 13.0 = 7.5 bits per second.
Thus the average reduction for the preferred hand was
7.9 bits per second. The reductions for the left hand using
Tables 5, 7, and 8 were 9.7 and 9.2 bits per second or an
average of 9.45 bits per second. These reductions clarify
a key aspect of the "one-channel hypothesis" of human
information processing.
It seems that the bottleneck in the brain-eye-muscle
system is neither the brain (command subsystem) nor
the eyes (tracking subsystem), but the muscles and
nerves (effector and feedback subsystem). In other words,
the limiting factor in hand-arm movements is not the
ability of the brain to command or the ability of the eyes
to supervise, but the ability of the nerves and muscles to

December 1969 AIIE Transactions 367

 Table 10: Mean misses for both hands in simultaneous motions when arranged by amount of
spread. (Misses underlined by the same line are not significantly (a<.05)
different. Misses for 9 and 16 inches totaled.)

Spread
0 degree Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Angles D D C C E E B B A A F F G G
Error, LH+RH 12 .50 13 .50 14.21 14.27 16.65 18.06 21.71
--

30 degrees Rank 8 9 10 11 12 13
Angles D E C D A B B C F G E F
Error, LH+RH 23.42 23.86 25.13 25.79 26.07 26.78

60 degree Rank 14 15 16 17 20
Angles E G B D A C C E D F
Error, LH+RH 27.35 28.72 28.92 29.14 30.20
-

90 degree Rank 18 19 22 24
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013

Angles C F D G A D B E
Error, LH+RH 29.28 29.79 31.20 31.66

120 degree Rank 21 23 25

Angles B F C G A E
Error, LH+RH 30.86 31.56 33.56
-
150 degree Rank 26 28
Angles A F B G
Error, LH+RH 34.35 35.56

180 degree Rank 27

Angles A G
Error, LH+RH 34.91

carry out the orders. The spirit is willing but the flesh
is weak.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In the introduction, the potential conflict in some situa-
tions between simultaneous and symmetrical motions
versus minimization of eye fixations was discussed. Based
on the literature and experiments, i t would seem that
the principle, "Motions of the arms should be made in
opposite and symmetrical directions, and should be made
simultaneously," should be subdivided into several prin-
ciples :
1. For one-hand motions, movements that pivot about
the elbow are preferred to movements which pivot about
the shoulder
2. For one-hand motions, movements with the pre-
ferred hand are preferred to movements of the non-pre-
ferred hand
3. Two-hand motions are preferred to one-hand mo-
tions
4. For two-hand motions, simultaneous motions are pre-
ferred to alternating motions
5. For two-hand simultaneous motions, a pattern
which minimizes eye fixations is preferred.
REFERENCES
(1) ANNETT, J., GOLBY, G., AND KAY,H., "The Measurements
of Elements in an Assembly Task-The Information Out-
put of the Human Motor System," Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, Volume 10, 1958.
(2) BARNES, R., "An Investigation of Some Hand Motions Used
in Factory Work," Bulletin 6, Studies in Engineering, Uni-
versity of Iowa, February, 1936.
(3) BARNES,R., Motion and Time Study, 2nd Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1940.

1 3 68 AIIE Transactions Volume I No. 4

Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013
(4) BARNES, R., A N D MUNDEL, M., "Studies of Hand Motions
and Rhythm Appearing in Factory Work," Bulletin 12,
Studies in Engineering, University of Iowa, February, 1938.
(5) BARNES, R., A N D MUNDEL, M., "A Study of Hand Motions
Used in Small Assembly Work," Bulletin 16, Studies in
Engineering, University of Iowa, January, 1939.
(6) BARNES,R., AND MUNDEL,M., "A Study of Simultaneous
and Symmetrical Hand Motions," Bulletin 17, Studies in
Engineering, University of Iowa, April, 1939.
(7) BARNES, R., MUNDEL, M., A N Y MACKENZIE, J., "Studies on
One- and Two-Handed Work," Bulletin 21, Studies in
Engineering, University of Iowa, March, 1940
(8) BARNES, R., PERKINS,J., A N D JURAN, J., "A Study of the
Effects of Practice on the Elements of a Factory Operation,"
Bulletin 22, Studies in Engineering, University of Iowa,
November, 1940.
(9) BOUISSET,S., HENON,D., A N D MONOD,H., "Influence de
L'Amplitude de Mouvement sur le Cout d'un Travail
Musculaire," Ergonomics, Pages 256-270, 1962.
(10) BOUISSET,S., LAVILLE,A., A N D MONOD,H., "Recherches
Physiologiques sur LJEconomie des Mouvements," Pro-
ceedings of Second International Congress on Ergonomics,
Dortmund, 1964, Taylor and Francis, London.
(11) BRIGGS,S., "A Study in the Design of Work Areas," P h D.
Dissertation, Purdue University, 1955.
(12) BROGDEN,W., "The Trigonometrical Relationship of
Precision and Angle of Linear Pursuit Movements as a Func-
December 1969 AIIE Transactions
tion of Amount of Practice," American Journal of Psychology,
Volume 66, Pages 45-56, 1953.
(13) CORRIGAN, R., A N D BROGEN,W., "The Effect of Angle
Upon Precision of Linear Pursuit Movements," American
Journal of Psychology, Volume 61, Pages 502-510, 1948.
(14) CROSSMAN, E., "The Information Capacity of the Human
Motor System in Pursuit Tracking," Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, Volume 12, Pages 1-16, 1960.
(15) FITTS,P., "The Information Capacity of the Human Motor
System in Controlling the Tolerance of the Movement,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Volume 47, Pages 381-
391,1954.
(16) FITTS, P., A N D PETERSON, J., "Information Capacity of
Discrete Motor Responses," Journal of Experimental
Psychology, Volume 67, Pages 103, 1964.
(17) GILBRETH, Motion Study, D. Van Nostrand Co., New York,
New York, 1911.
(18) JEANS,C , "A Study of the Physiological Costs of Sym-
metrical and Simultaneous Motions," MS Thesis, Kansas
State University, 1966.
(19) KONZ,S., "Design of Workstations," Journal of Industrial
Engineering, Volume 18, No. 7, Pages 413-423, July, 1967.
(20) NICHOLS,D. A N D AMRINE,H., "A Physiological Appraisal
of Selected Principles of Motion Economy," Journal of
Industrial Engineering, Volume 10, No. 5, September-
October, 1959.
(21) RATHORE, R., "A Study of Effect of Angle and Distance on
369
 the Speed and Accuracy of Single Hand and Two Hand
Simultaneous Motions in the Horizontal Plane," MS Thesis
Kansas State University, 1968.
(22) REICHARD,F., "A Kinesiological Evaluation of Parallel
versus Symmetrical Patterns in Simultaneous Hand and
Arm Motions," MS Thesis, Texas Tech., 1967.
(23) SCHMIDTKE, H., AND STIEB,F., "An Experimental Evalua-
tion of the Validity of Pre-determined Elemental Time
Analysis Systems," Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol-
ume 12, No. 3, 1961.
(24) SHANNON, C., "A Mathematical Theory of Communica-
tion," Bell System Technical Journal, Volume 27, Pages 379-
423 and 623-656, 1948.
Collins Radio, and the University of Illinois, where he earned a
P h V in Industrial Engineering. He also holds a B S I E and a n
M B A from the University of Michigan and a n M S I E from the
State University of Iowa. He is a member of the H u m a n Factors
Society, the Ergonomics Research Society, ASQC, A S T M E ,
A S H R A E , I E E E , Sigma X i , and Alpha P i M u .
Mr. Jeans i s a rate engineer at Southwestern Public Service
Company in Amarillo, Texas, where he i s currently working on
economic analysis and the design of utility rate structures. He
holds B S and M S degrees i n industrial engineering from Kansas
State University.

Mr. Rathore i s a n instructor in mathematics and computer

Dr. Konz i s a professor in the Department of Industrial
Engineering at Kansas State University. He i s currently involved
i n the design of work stations, automotive braking, cooling suits,
training and information content of hand-arm motions. He was
previously associated with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
Downloaded by [betsy peralta] at 14:36 24 April 2013
science at Marymount College in Salina, Kansas, where he i s
also a consultant i n data processing work connected with college
administration. H e has been a n instructor at Kansas Technical
Inititute and a n industrial engineer for Craddock Uniform Inc.
Mr. Rathore received a B S degree from Birla Institute of Tech-
nology and a n M S from Kansas State University.

CORRECTION
REFERENCE-"^^^^^^^^ Performance Studies 111: Three-Dimensional
Equations for Hand Motion Path" by Appu Kuttan and Gerald
Nadler, A I I E Transactions, Volume I , No. 3, September, 1969, pp.
223-228.
ERROR-Reference 12 on page 228 is in error.

C O R R E C T I O N - R12~should ~ C ~Smalley, H. E., "Another Look

~ ~ ~ ~read:
a t Work Measurement," Journal o f Industrial Engineering, Volume
XVIII, No. 3, March, 1967, pp. 202-218. Consequently, "Stukey's
equation" on page 228 should read "Smalley's equation," and Smalley's
name should be substituted for Stukey's in line 9 of the first column on
page 228.

COMMENT-The authors regret this error and apologize for any incon-
venience it may have caused the readers.

AIIE Transactions Volume I No. 4