人因学发展的新取向

[2]

陈立

. ( 1935). 工业心理学概观. 北京: 商务印书馆.

DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-5825.2015.02.001 URL [本文引用: 4]

[3]

陈善广, 姜国华, 王春慧 . ( 2015).

航天人因工程研究进展

载人航天, 21( 2), 95-105.

航天人因工程是人因工程学在载人航天领域中的应用,秉承"为航天员使用而设计"的理念,系统研究解决航天员、航天器、航天环境之间的关系问题,确保航天员在轨安全、舒适、高效工作。从航天人因工程概念和作用出发,通过系统梳理国际国内航天人因工程研究的发展现状,重点分析了其研究特点及未来发展趋势。结合我国载人航天后续发展对航天人因工程的迫切实际需求,系统梳理了航天人因工程研究技术体系,并从管理与技术研究两个方面,系统论述了我国航天人因工程的研究应迫切开展的工作及后续发展的思路。

[4]

陈善广, 王春慧, 陈晓萍, 姜国华 . ( 2015).

长期空间飞行中人的作业能力变化特性研究

航天医学与医学工程, 28( 1), 1-10.

DOI:10.16289/j.cnki.1002-0837.2015.01.001 URL [本文引用: 1]

航天员是载人航天活动的主体和核心,维持和增强航天员的能力,充分发挥人的主观能动作用是确保载人航天任务成功的关键。我国载人航天正从短期向长期空间飞行过渡,研究长期空间飞行下人的作业能力变化特性是开展相关研制的基础。本文从论述载人航天中人的地位和作用出发,分析了长期空间飞行中人的作业能力特点和需求,较系统地综述了国际上在长期空间飞行中人的作业能力变化特性方面最新基础研究和应用成果及发展态势,最后对我国空间站和后续载人航天任务在航天员作业能力方面的研究提出了建议。

[5]

陈迎春

. ( 2013). 民机驾驶舱人机工效综合仿真理论与方法研究. 上海: 上海交通大学出版社.

[6]

葛列众, 孙梦丹, 王琦君 . ( 2015).

视觉显示技术的新视角: 交互显示

心理科学进展, 23( 4), 539-546.

DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.00539 URL [本文引用: 1]

Interactive display has become a popular information presentation technology in Human-computer interface development. This technology modifies presentation information and/or its layout according to users current operation or their personal habits. The interactive display can be classified into two major categories: the simple (e.g., the fisheye display) and the intelligent interactive displays (e.g., the speed-coupled flattening and the bubble targets display). Interactive display has three features: dynamicness, realtimeness, and intelligence. Most of the current interactive display technologies were far from perfect. For example, they were limited in the number of interactive methods, most of which were still lack of intelligence. Thus, future studies should focus on developing interactive displays with multiple interactive methods, and with advanced intelligence.

[7]

葛列众, 李宏汀, 王笃明 . ( 2017). 工程心理学. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.

[本文引用: 3]

[8]

李鹏程, 张力, 戴立操, 蒋建军, 罗迪凡 . ( 2016).

核电厂操纵员的情景意识失误与预防控制研究

原子能科学技术, 50( 2), 323-331.

DOI:10.13837/j.issn.1006-8309.2015.01.0013 URL [本文引用: 1]

[9]

毛茅, 张宇博, 饶培伦 . ( 2015).

急诊室人的失误影响因素概述

人类工效学, 21( 1), 61-65.

急诊室是进行复杂医疗技术工作的场所,具有动态性、不确定性、分布性和协作性等特征.与其他医疗系统不同的是,急诊室是一种开放、无边界,且需要复杂交流的社会技术系统.在此系统中,从人的失误和职业安全的角度研究导致医护人员出现失误的因素显得尤为迫切.本文从人、任务和组织的角度,对前人文献中关于导致急诊室中人的失误的因素进行了综述,着重研究阻碍急诊室进行有效、安全运行的因素,并对此提出相应的可行措施.本文旨在帮助医院、急诊室管理者、医生和其他医护人员将避免失误的措施运用到实际工作和管理中,以减少人的失误,提升医护工作者的职业安全.

[10]

庞小月, 郭睿桢, 姚乃埌, 于佳林, 余诗贤, 王慈, 高在峰 . ( 2014).

体感交互人因学研究回顾与展望

应用心理学, 20(3), 243-251.

[11]

全国人类工效学标准化技术委员会, 中国标准出版社第四编辑室. ( 2009a). 人类工效学标准汇编: 物理环境卷. 北京: 中国标准出版社.

[12]

全国人类工效学标准化技术委员会, 中国标准出版社第四编辑室. ( 2009b). 人类工效学标准汇编: 一般性指导原则及人-系统交互卷. 北京: 中国标准出版社.

[13]

全国人类工效学标准化技术委员会, 中国标准出版社第四编辑室. ( 2009c). 人类工效学标准汇编: 人体测量与生物力学卷. 北京: 中国标准出版社.

DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-3045.2011.06.005 URL [本文引用: 1]

[14]

孙向红, 吴昌旭, 张亮, 瞿炜娜 . ( 2011).

工程心理学作用、地位和进展

中国科学院院刊, 26( 6), 650-660.

工程心理学研究人机系统中人的心理特征、行为规律以及人与机器和环境的相互作用。作为一门较新的心理学分支学科,正随着当今社会信息化程度的提高而逐渐被人们所重视。本文概括性地介绍了工程心理学的研究对象、核心科学问题及其在国内外的发展历程。从作业者的认知操作与工作绩效,情境意识、心理负荷与自动化,以及人机交互这三个工程心理学研究的主要领域对其研究内容与进展进行了介绍,并对学科研究方法的进展及其在工业产品设计与军事领域的应用进行了总结。最后,本文从理论和应用两方面对未来工程心理学的发展提出了建议和展望。

[15]

吴朝辉, 俞一鹏, 潘纲, 王跃明 . ( 2014).

脑机融合系统综述

生命科学, 26( 6), 645-649.

[16]

许卫

. ( 2004).

有关自动化飞机驾驶舱的人机工效学问题

国际航空, ( 5), 49-51.

自动化飞机驾驶舱在飞行操作的准确性和可靠性、燃料的经济性以及飞行安全等方面带来了许多好处．但同时也给驾驶舱人机界面设计、飞行操作和飞行员培训等带来了人机工效学方面新的挑战

[17]

许为

. ( 2003).

自动化飞机驾驶舱中人-自动化系统交互作用的心理学研究

心理科学, 26( 3), 523-524.

DOI:10.13837/j.issn.1006-8309.2017.01.0016 URL [本文引用: 1]

[18]

许为

. ( 2017).

再论以用户为中心的设计: 新挑战和新机遇

人类工效学, 23( 1), 82-86.

文章讨论和分析了近十年来,以用户为中心的设计(User-centered Design,UCD)实践所面临的新挑战和新要求.虽然传统的UCD实践提供了坚实的设计理念和基本方法,但是这些基本方法已不能完全满足当今UCD实践的要求。因此,作者初步提出了一个进一步完善UCD实践的增强型UCD+的概念框架,并提出了一系列具体的方法和建议。

[19]

许为, 陈勇 . ( 2012).

人机工效学在民用客机研发中应用的新进展及建议

航空科学技术, ( 6), 18-21.

[20]

许为, 陈勇 . ( 2013).

民用客机人机工效学适航认证及对策

民用飞机设计与研究, ( 2), 24- 30, 80.

DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-9804.2014.03.002 URL [本文引用: 1]

[21]

许为, 陈勇 . ( 2014).

从驾驶舱设计和适航来减少由设计引发的飞行员人为差错的挑战和途径

民用飞机设计与研究, ( 3), 5-11.

人为差错成为导致民用飞机重大事故的主要原因已经是不争的事实。对人为差错发生的原因及其预防措施已有许多研究和建议。侧重从民机驾驶舱设计和适航角度，并结合增补的FAA和EASA FAR/CS 25.1302适航条款，分析和探讨为减少由设计引发的飞行员人为差错所面临的挑战和途径，并对开展这方面的工作提出一系列框架性建议。

[22]

薛澄岐

. ( 2015). 复杂信息系统人机交互数字界面设计方法及应用. 南京: 东南大学出版社.

[23]

姚永杰, 刘秋红, 王庆敏, 史卫民 . ( 2016).

舰载机航空人机工效研究的紧迫问题

医学争鸣, 7( 1), 8-11.

本研究以提高舰载机海上飞行和着舰的安全性、可靠性为目的,围绕舰载机航空人机工效研究的现实需求,介绍了舰载机飞行时视觉认知和操纵作业的人机交互特点及工效学评价方法,分析了舰载机航空工效学研究的发展趋势。

[24]

张丽川, 李宏汀, 葛列众 . ( 2009).

Tobii眼动仪在人机交互中的应用

人类工效学, 15( 2), 67-69.

[25]

郑燕, 王璟, 葛列众 . ( 2015).

自适应用户界面研究综述

航天医学与医学工程, 28( 2), 145-150.

[26]

Baldwin, C. L., &Coyne, J. ( 2005).

Dissociable aspects of mental workload: Examinations of the P300 ERP component and performance assessments

Psychologia, 48, 102-119.

DOI:10.2117/psysoc.2005.102 URL [本文引用: 1]

[27]

Bennett, K. B. ( 2017).

Ecological interface design and system safety: One facet of Rasmussen's legacy

Applied Ergonomics, 59( 2), 625-636.

DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.08.001 URL [本文引用: 1]

[28]

BCPE.

Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics (BCPE)

Retrieved April 3, 2018, from .

[29]

Borghetti, B. J., Giametta

J. J

., & Rusnock. ( 2017).

Assessing continuous operator workload with a hybrid scaffolded neuroergonomic modeling approach

Human Factors, 59( 1), 134-146.

DOI:10.1177/0018720816672308 URL [本文引用: 1]

[30]

Burns

C. M

., & Hajdukiewicz, J. .( 2004) . Ecological interface design. London: CRC Press.

[31]

Cao, S., & Liu, Y. L. ( 2013).

Queueing network-adaptive control of thought rational (QN-ACTR): An integrated cognitive architecture for modelling complex cognitive and multi-task performance

International Journal of Human Factors Modelling and Simulation, 4( 1), 63-86.

DOI:10.1504/IJHFMS.2013.055790 URL [本文引用: 1]

[32]

Carayon, P. ( 2006).

Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems

Applied Ergonomics, 37, 525-535.

DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.011 URL PMID:16756937 [本文引用: 1]

Increasingly products and services result from interactions among people who work across organizational, geographical, cultural and temporal boundaries. This has major implications for human factors and ergonomics (HFE), in particular, challenging the limits of the systems to be designed, and widening the range of system elements and dimensions that we need to consider. The design of sociotechnical systems that involve work across multiple boundaries requires better integration of the various sub-disciplines or components of HFE, as well as increased collaboration with other disciplines that provide either expertise regarding the domain of application or expertise in concepts that can enrich the system design.In addition, ‘customers’ contribute significantly to the ‘co-production’ of products/services, as well as to their quality/safety. The design of sociotechnical systems in collaboration with both the workers in the systems and the customers requires increasing attention not only to the design and implementation of systems, but also to the continuous adaptation and improvement of systems in collaboration with customers.This paper draws from research on human factors in the domains of health care and patient safety and of computer security.

[33]

Cooke, N. J. ( 2017).

How can human factors/ergonomics take on the NAE grand challenges?

Retrieved April 3, 2018, from .

URL [本文引用: 5]

[34]

Dul

., Bruder

., Buckle

., Carayon

., Falzon

., Marras

W. S

., … van der Doelen, B. ( 2012).

A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession

Ergonomics, 55( 4), 377-395.

DOI:10.1080/00140139.2012.661087 URL PMID:22332611

Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has great potential to contribute to the design of all kinds of systems with people (work systems, product/service systems), but faces challenges in the readiness of its market and in the supply of high-quality applications. HFE has a unique combination of three fundamental characteristics: (1) it takes a systems approach (2) it is design driven and (3) it focuses on two closely related outcomes: performance and well-being. In order to contribute to future system design, HFE must demonstrate its value more successfully to the main stakeholders of system design. HFE already has a strong value proposition (mainly well-being) and interactivity with the stakeholder group of ‘system actors’ (employees and product/service users). However, the value proposition (mainly performance) and relationships with the stakeholder groups of ‘system experts’ (experts fromtechnical and social sciences involved in system design), and ‘system decision makers’ (managers and other decision makers involved in system design, purchase, implementation and use), who have a strong power to influence system design, need to be developed. Therefore, the first main strategic direction is to strengthen the demand for high-quality HFE by increasing awareness among powerful stakeholders of the value of high-quality HFE by communicating with stakeholders, by building partnerships and by educating stakeholders. The second main strategic direction is to strengthen the application of high-quality HFE by promoting the education of HFE specialists, by ensuring high-quality standards of HFE applications and HFE specialists, and by promoting HFE research excellence at universities and other organisations. This strategy requires cooperation between the HFE community at large, consisting of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), local (national and regional) HFE societies, and HFE specialists. We propose a joint world-wide HFE development plan, in which the IEA takes a leadership role. Practitioner Summary: Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has much to offer by addressing major business and societal challenges regarding work and product/service systems. HFE potential, however, is underexploited. This paper presents a strategy for the HFE community to strengthen demand and application of high-quality HFE, emphasising its key elements: systems approach, design driven, and performance and well-being goals.

[35]

Endsley, M. R. ( 1995).

Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems

Human Factors, 37, 32-64.

DOI:10.1518/001872095779049543 URL [本文引用: 1]

[36]

Endsley

M. R

. ( 2000).

Errors in situation assessment: Implications for system design

In: P. E., Elzer, R. H. Ktuwe, & P. F. Boussoffara, (Eds.), Human error and system design and management (pp. 15-26). London: Springer.

DOI:10.1007/BFb0110451 URL [本文引用: 1]

An analysis of human error in different domains shows that much of it is not due to poor decision making, but poor situation awareness. These situation awareness problems can be tied to a number of fa

[37]

Endsley

M. R

. & Jones, D. G. ( 2012). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design (2nd ed). London: CRC Press.

[38]

Endsley

M. R

., Hoffman

., Kaber

., & Roth

. ( 2007).

Cognitive engineering and decision making: An overview and future course

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1( 1), 1-21.

DOI:10.1177/155534340700100101 URL [本文引用: 1]

Abstract The field of cognitive engineering and decision making (CEDM) has grown rapidly in recent decades. At this writing, it is the largest technical interest group within the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Work that falls into this area of research and study is also widely practiced across Europe and in countries around the world. Along with this growth, there is a significant need for a peer-reviewed journal that focuses specifically on CEDM as a science and applied discipline. The Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making is intended to meet that need. It will cover current research, theory, and practice in ways that not only provide for the sharing of information across interested parties but also serve to move the field forward. This will advance theoretical bases; address outstanding scientific challenges; set new courses and directions; address methods, measurement, and methodological issues; and show useful applications of this work in the development of operational and training systems in many domains that are of significance to society, government, and business. In this article, we provide background on the CEDM field and its areas of research. We use this as a platform for further specifying the scope of this journal along three technical tracks. Objectives are identified for each track as it supports the overall mission of the journal. Finally, we provide information on an electronic companion to the journal that is intended to support advances in the field through dialogue and access to further resources.

[39]

Evans

., Buckland

., & Lefer

. ( 2004). They made America: From the steam engine to the search engine: Two centuries of innovators. Boston: Little Brown.

[40]

Farooq, U., & Grudin, J. ( 2016).

Human computer integration

Interactions, 23, 27-32.

[41]

Foyle

D. C

., & Hooey, B. L.( 2007) . Human performance modeling in aviation. London: CRC Press.

[42]

Hendrick

H. W

., & Kleiner, B. .( 2002). Macroergonomics: Theory, methods, and applications. London: CRC Press.

[43]

Hobbs, A. & Lyall, B. ( 2016).

Human factors guidelines for unmanned aircraft systems

Ergonomics in Design, 24( 3), 23-28.

[44]

Hollnagel

., & Woods, D. D.( 2005) . Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. London: CRC Press.

[45]

Howell, W. C. ( 2001).

The HF/E parade: A tale of two models

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 45( 1), 1-5.

DOI:10.1177/154193120104500101 URL [本文引用: 2]

[46]

Human Factors Ergonomics Society ( HFES). ( 2016, Sept).

HFES comments on the national science foundation strategic plan

Retrieved May 29, 2018, from

[47]

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ( HFES). ( 2018).

Directory of human factors/ergonomics graduate programs in the United States and Canada

Retrieved April 3, 2018, from

[48]

Jeon, M. ( 2017). Emotions and affect in human factors and human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

[49]

Kitson, L. ( 2011).

User-led does not equal user-centered

UX Magazine, 17. Retrieved May 29, 2018, from

[50]

Lundberg, J. ( 2015).

Situation awareness systems, states and processes: A holistic framework

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 16( 5), 447-473.

DOI:10.1080/1463922X.2015.1008601 URL [本文引用: 1]

This paper argues that state, system, and process descriptions of situation awareness (SA) are interdependent. Based on SA research from the last 30 years, the paper proposes a holistic SA framework. SA states emerge from processes of exploring situations through SA systems. Reflecting research on safety II (resilience), in describing SA states, the framework distinguishes frames (what situations are considered) from implications (regarding the situations) of objects on and of an event horizon. The paper describes and discusses SA system and process dependencies on SA states. It also describes SA system components as mediators and catalysts for SA, SA system properties (e.g. buffering SA), and dynamic SA system formation. Based on an analysis of four enactments of Air Traffic Control situations, the paper argues that what is domain-characteristic may not characterise all situations in a domain. The SA field could thus benefit from incrementally refining a nuanced cross-domain framework.

[51]

Mcilroy, R. C., & Stanton, N. A. ( 2015).

Ecological interface design two decades on: whatever happened to the SRK taxonomy?

IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 45( 2), 145-163.

DOI:10.1109/THMS.2014.2369372 URL [本文引用: 1]

Since first receiving attention in the literature almost 25 years ago, ecological interface design has been applied to a wide variety of man-machine systems across a range of domains. The design framework has its theoretical basis in Gibsonian ecological psychology, and its founding principles draw heavily on Jens Rasmussen's skills, rules, and knowledge (SRK) taxonomy. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the framework's applications since Vicente and Rasmussen's 1992 seminal article detailing the theoretical foundations of the method. There is variation in terms of both the use of the two fundamental components of the method as it was first described, and how it has been supplemented with other phases of the cognitive work analysis; this review highlights these variations with regard to how the design framework has been applied and how these applications have been reported in the literature. The importance of the SRK taxonomy to the framework is specifically discussed following the finding that 40% of reviewed applications do not cite this component despite its centrality to ecological interface design. Attention is drawn to the method's flexibility and adaptability, to its contribution to the content and form of an interface, and a point is made about the importance of being clear and consistent when reporting how the method has been applied and, where appropriate, adapted.

[52]

Naikar, N. ( 2017).

Cognitive work analysis: An influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering

Applied Ergonomics, 59, 528-540.

DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.001 URL PMID:27344380 [本文引用: 2]

61This paper traces the evolution of cognitive work analysis (CWA), from its origins to its subsequent development and impact.61It demonstrates that CWA provides a convincing basis for designing ecological interfaces, addressing a variety of human factors and engineering concerns in industry, and developing military doctrine.61The cases considered also suggest that the outcomes achieved with CWA, even in diverse areas, are likely to be attributable to its conceptual grounding in empirical observations of patterns of human reasoning in complex systems.

[53]

Norman, D. ( 1986).

Cognitive engineering

In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

[54]

Parasuraman

. & Rizzo, M.( 2006). Neuroergonomics: The brain at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[55]

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. U. ( 2010).

Cumulative knowledge and progress in human factors

Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 623-651.

DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100325 URL PMID:19534588 [本文引用: 1]

This review provides a cumulative perspective on current human factors research by first briefly acknowledging previous Annual Review articles. We show that sev

[56]

Rasmussen

., Pejtersen

A. M

., & Goodstein

L. P

. ( 1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley.

[57]

Rouse

W. B

., Pennock

P. J

., Oghbaie

., & Liu

. ( 2017).

Interactive visualizations for decision support: Application of Rasmussen's abstraction-aggregation hierarchy

Applied Ergonomics, 59, 541-553.

DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.03.006 URL [本文引用: 1]

[58]

Rebelo

., Noriega

., Duarte

., & Soares

. ( 2012).

Using virtual reality to assess user experience

Human Factors, 54( 6), 964-982.

DOI:10.1177/0018720812465006 URL PMID:23397807 [本文引用: 1]

The aim of this article is to discuss how user experience (UX) evaluation can benefit from the use of virtual reality (VR).UX is usually evaluated in laboratory settings. However, considering that UX occurs as a consequence of the interaction between the product, the user, and the context of use, the assessment of UX can benefit from a more ecological test setting. VR provides the means to develop realistic-looking virtual environments with the advantage of allowing greater control of the experimental conditions while granting good ecological validity.The methods used to evaluate UX, as well as their main limitations, are identified.The currentVR equipment and its potential applications (as well as its limitations and drawbacks) to overcome some of the limitations in the assessment of UX are highlighted.The relevance of VR for UX studies is discussed, and a VR-based framework for evaluating UX is presented.UX research may benefit from a VR-based methodology in the scopes of user research (e.g., assessment of users' expectations derived from their lifestyles) and human-product interaction (e.g., assessment of users' emotions since the first moment of contact with the product and then during the interaction).This article provides knowledge to researchers and professionals engaged in the design of technological interfaces about the usefulness of VR in the evaluation of UX.

[59]

Schulz

C. M

., Endsley

M. R

., Kochs

E. F

., Gelb

A. W

., & Wagner

K. J

. ( 2013).

Situation awareness in anesthesia: Concept and research

Anesthesiology, 118( 3), 729-742.

DOI:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318280a40f URL [本文引用: 2]

[60]

Sheridan, T. B. ( 2016).

Human-robot interaction: status and challenges

Human Factors, 58( 4), 525-532.

DOI:10.1177/0018720816644364 URL [本文引用: 1]

[61]

Skibsted, J. M., & Hansen, R. B. ( 2011).

User-led innovation can’t create breakthroughs

Harvard Business Review. , 2014-05-08.

[62]

Stedmon, A., Richards, D., Frumkin, L., & Fussey, P. (2016).

Human factors insecurity: User-centred and socio-technical perspectives

Security Journal, 29, 1-4.

DOI:10.1057/sj.2015.40 URL [本文引用: 1]

No Abstract available for this article.

[63]

Vicente, K. J. ( 1999).

Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[64]

Wickens

C. D

., Hollands

J. G

., Banbury

., & Parasuraman, R.( 2012) . Engineering psychology and human performance (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Psychology Press.

[65]

., Dainoff

M. J

., & Mark

L. S

. ( 1999).

Facilitate complex search tasks in hypertext by externalizing functional properties of a work domain

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 11( 3), 201-229.

DOI:10.1207/S15327590IJHC1103_2 URL [本文引用: 1]

[66]

Xu, W. ( 2007).

Identifying problems and generating recommendations for enhancing complex systems: Applying the abstraction hierarchy framework as an analytical tool

Human Factors, 49( 6), 975-994.

DOI:10.1518/001872007X249857 URL [本文引用: 1]

[67]

Xu, W. ( 2014).

Enhanced ergonomics approaches for product design: A user experience ecosystem perspective and case studies

Ergonomics, 57( 1), 34-51.

DOI:10.1080/00140139.2013.861023 URL [本文引用: 1]

[68]

Xu, W. & Furie, D. ( 2016).

Designing for unified experience: a new perspective and a case study

In Angelina. C. Sparks & N. Science (Eds.), Ergonomics: Challenges, applications and new perspectives ( pp. 137-165). New York: Nova Science Publishers.