Evaluating the Performance of an Ergonomic Contactless Mouse for Disabled People Using the FMEA Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26821/IJSHRE.14.06.2026.140604Keywords:
assistive technology, contactless mouse, wearable computing, MPU6050, gesture recognition, FMEA, ergonomics, BLE HID, upper-limb disabilityAbstract
The Free Hand Mouse is an ergonomic, contactless, and wearable mouse designed for use by people with mobility issues in their upper limbs and people who do not have functional fingers, hands, or forearms. Standard computer mouse require fine motor skills and precise hand movements and are therefore not usable by large segments of the global disabled population, which counts over 1.3 billion people. Other assistive technology, such as eye-tracking and voice-command systems, is accessible but not affordable and overly sensitive to their environments or is not user-friendly for routine computer tasks.
The innovative gadget is a wrist or elbow-mounted design, and functions as a tilt-based cursor mover, using the InvenSense MPU-6050 IMU. The design also features a PixArt PAJ7620U2, which senses gestures to identify clicks. The included microcontroller, a Seeed XIAO ESP32-C3, wirelessly sends input commands through Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) as a Human Interface Device (HID). The design improves user adoption and utility by including a secondary smartwatch design, along with a 1.3-inch OLED display. The developmental process is a simple, structured iterative journey, utilising conceptual design and ideation, the bill of materials, embedded firmware, breadboard prototyping, schematic design, CAD modelling, FDM 3D printing, and soldering. The systematic method for identifying and prioritising failure risks and defining actions to reduce those risks, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), has been applied across eight key subsystems. Design changes were made based on the RPN and corresponding severity, occurrence, and detection ratings. Initial user tests showed greater than expected control of the cursor, response times that were within expected limits, and fair to good ergonomic ratings. The Free Hand Mouse is an assistive technology for HCI that is low-cost, easy to manufacture, and ergonomic, and has the potential to be further improved and clinically validated.
References
Amma, C., Krings, T., Boer, J., & Schultz, T. (2015). Advancing muscle-computer interfaces with high-density electromyography. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 929-938.
AIAG & VDA. (2019). FMEA Handbook: Design FMEA, Process FMEA, Monitoring and System Response (1st ed.). Automotive Industry Action Group.
Georgi, M., Amma, C., & Schultz, T. (2015). Recognizing hand and finger gestures with IMU based motion and EMG based muscle activity sensing. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, 4, 99-108.
Keates, S., & Clarkson, P. J. (2003). Countering design exclusion: Bridging the gap between usability and accessibility. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2(3), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-003-0059-5
Kela, J., Korpipaa, P., Mantyjarvi, J., Kallio, S., Savino, G., Jozzo, L., & Di Marca, S. (2006). Accelerometer-based gesture control for a design environment. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 10(5), 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0033-8
Knight, J. F., & Baber, C. (2005). A tool to assess the comfort of wearable computers. Human Factors, 47(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720053653875
Kumar, A., Sharma, K., & Sharma, A. (2021). A systematic review on context-aware autonomous navigation of mobile robots for assistive technology. Expert Systems with Applications, 165, 113928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113928
MacKenzie, I. S., & Riddersma, S. (1994). Effects of output display and control-display gain on human performance in interactive systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 13(5), 328-337.
Mahony, R., Hamel, T., & Pflimlin, J. M. (2008). Nonlinear complementary filters on the special orthogonal group. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 53(5), 1203-1218. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.923738
Mitra, S., & Acharya, T. (2007). Gesture recognition: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, 37(3), 311-324. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2007.893280
Newell, A. F., & Gregor, P. (2000). User sensitive inclusive design: In search of a new paradigm. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability (CUU), 39-44.
Patel, S., Park, H., Bonato, P., Chan, L., & Rodgers, M. (2019). A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 9(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-21
Rogers, J., Hergenroeder, A., & Zawadzki, M. (2018). Wearable technology adoption and barriers among upper extremity prosthetic users. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(3), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1308296
Shahin, A. (2004). Integration of FMEA and the Kano model: An exploratory examination. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(7), 731-746. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710410549238
Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution (2nd ed.). ASQ Quality Press.
Trewin, S., Keates, S., & Moffatt, K. (2006). Developing steady clicks: A method of cursor assistance for people with motor impairments. Proceedings of the ACM ASSETS Conference, 26-33.
World Health Organisation. (2023). Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. WHO Press. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063600
