Desktop Display-Stand Geometry, Screen Stability, and User Task Performance: A Controlled Ergonomic Evaluation
Abstract
Display-stand geometry can affect screen stability, viewing position, and task performance, yet workstation accessories are often evaluated primarily for static dimensions. We conducted a controlled ergonomic study with 72 adult computer users completing reading, pointing, and text-entry tasks under six display-stand configurations that varied height, base depth, tilt resistance, and platform stiffness. Screen displacement during input, viewing angle, task time, error rate, neck discomfort, and perceived stability were recorded. Stiffer platforms with moderate base depth reduced screen oscillation by 44% compared with the least stable configuration and improved pointing-task accuracy by 7%. Excessive stand height increased self-reported neck discomfort despite providing greater clearance beneath the display. Task completion time was not significantly improved by maximum stiffness once oscillation fell below a practical threshold. Participants consistently preferred configurations that combined moderate elevation with low lateral movement. The findings indicate that display stands should be evaluated as dynamic workstation components rather than by height adjustment alone. A balanced design can improve screen stability without introducing viewing-angle or comfort penalties.
References
1. Azam MA. Desktop Display Stand for Electronic Tablets and Screens. GB Patent 6,509,489. 2026. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=Kh7pTrcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Kh7pTrcAAAAJ:eQOLeE2rZwMC
2. Young JG, Trudeau M, Odell D, Marinelli K, Dennerlein JT. Touch-screen tablet user configurations and case-supported tilt affect head and neck flexion angles. Work. 2012;41(1):81-91. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-1337.
3. McAtamney L, Corlett EN. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon. 1993;24(2):91-99. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-S.
4. Hignett S, McAtamney L. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl Ergon. 2000;31(2):201-205. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3.
5. Rempel DM, Krause N, Goldberg R, Benner D, Hudes M, Goldner GU. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of two workstation interventions on upper body pain and incident musculoskeletal disorders among computer operators. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63(5):300-306. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.022285.
6. Wellek S, Blettner M. On the proper use of the crossover design in clinical trials: part 18 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109(15):276-281. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0276.
7. Grizzle JE. The two-period change-over design and its use in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1965;21(2):467-480. doi:10.2307/2528104.
8. Hick WE. On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol. 1952;4(1):11-26. doi:10.1080/17470215208416600.
9. Fitts PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954;47(6):381-391. doi:10.1037/h0055392.
10. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Computer workstations: monitors [Internet]. [cited 2026 Sep 22]. Available from: https://www.osha.gov/etools/computer-workstations/components/monitors
11. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci. 1988;12(2):257-285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.
12. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol. 1988;52:139-183. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9.
13. Lakens D. Sample size justification. Collabra Psychol. 2022;8(1):33267. doi:10.1525/collabra.33267.
14. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2600-2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
15. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
16. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
17. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 1979;7(1):1-26. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552.
18. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright. Articles published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0) may be shared and adapted for any purpose, including commercially, provided appropriate credit is given, a link to the licence is supplied, and changes are indicated. No additional legal or technological restrictions may be imposed. Third-party material is included only where its credit line permits. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Earlier publications remain subject to their stated licence and author agreements unless the rights holder authorizes a change.
