03/31/2026
By Danielle Fretwell

The Francis College of Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, invites you to attend a Doctoral Dissertation defense by Andrea Vivaldi on: "Ergonomics and Productivity Impacts of Different Monitor Configurations Under Varying Mental Workload Conditions."

Candidate Name: Andrea Vivaldi
Degree: Doctoral
Defense Date: Friday, April 10, 2026
Time: 10 a.m. - noon
Location: Shah 308

Committee:

  • Advisor: David Claudio, PhD, Industrial Engineering Program Director, University of Massachusetts Lowell
  • Maria Velazquez, PhD, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell
  • Dan Kosmas, PhD, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell
  • Valentina Nino, PhD, Kennesaw State University

Abstract:
The rapid adoption of multi‑monitor workstations has outpaced the development of ergonomic guidance, leaving uncertainty about how different display geometries influence posture, usability, and productivity. This thesis integrates findings from a literature review, a survey of computer users, and two controlled laboratory experiments to address this gap. The review shows that existing studies use inconsistent methods and rarely consider emerging technologies such as ultrawide (UW) displays, limiting the ability to form evidence‑based recommendations. To provide real‑world context, a survey of 208 computer users found that 65% use multiple monitors, with dual‑monitor configurations (especially L‑shaped layouts) dominant.

Cluster analysis revealed four user types differing in display number, layout, and daily exposure. Many users appear to adopt suboptimal arrangements, indicating a potential mismatch between practice and ergonomic best‑practice. Building on these findings, two laboratory experiments compared L‑shape and V‑shape dual‑monitor layouts with a single UW display. The first experiment, involving 32 participants performing standardized office tasks, showed that the L‑shape consistently produced the highest head rotation and tilt angles, while the UW produced the lowest or near‑lowest exposures. 

Distributional analyses revealed that the UW concentrated head rotation within neutral ranges (0–10°), whereas the L‑shape shifted exposure toward sustained non‑neutral postures (20–45°). Despite similar performance across layouts, participants rated the UW as less awkward and easier to use. The second experiment extended this work by manipulating mental workload across two sessions with 30 participants. Results confirmed that display geometry had the largest effect on posture: the UW minimized head rotation, the L‑shape maximized it, and the V‑shape remained intermediate. Higher workload did not change rotation but reliably increased forward head tilt, suggesting attentional narrowing and leaning behavior independent of monitor configuration. Performance remained comparable across all layouts, yet participants strongly preferred the UW. Both experiments found that users rarely reorganized windows, magnifying the ergonomic consequences of display geometry. 

Across the combined investigations, clear patterns emerge: dual‑monitor configurations (particularly L‑shaped setups) introduce postural risks that users may not anticipate, while ultrawide displays provide comparable performance with superior ergonomic characteristics and higher user acceptance. The findings highlight growing real‑world reliance on multi‑monitor arrangements, persistent misconceptions about layout effectiveness, and the need for updated ergonomic recommendations that better account for modern display technologies, user behavior, and the interaction between cognitive demands and physical posture.