近年國內運動風氣的興盛， 很多人選擇使用橢圓滑步機作為強健身體與維持基本體能
的訓練工具，長時間使用橢圓滑步機後， 為有效了解橢圓滑步機對人體肌肉骨骼與生理負
荷的影響，建立生物力學與生理負荷評估之人因工程分析是有其必要。本研究目的是以人
體動作分析系統，來瞭解兩部不同設計等級的滑步機運動的舒適性差異。並以人體質量中
心(center of mass, COM) 、肌電訊號（EMG）與關節角度變化作為橢圓滑步機相關評估之
參數。本研究受測者為十位健康無神經肌肉骨骼傷痛的學生，兩種不同等級之橢圓滑步機，
針對每種型號做三種不同滑動負荷實驗（70W、220W 與370W）。實驗結果發現在兩台不同的
橢圓滑步機上，人體質量中心在垂直高度（238%、211%與199%）與前後距離（輕156%、154%
與131%）有顯著性差異，而在同一橢圓滑步機之不同負荷比較上，只有在輕負荷與重負荷
發現人體質量中心的左右移動軌跡（machine A：147%、machine B：134%）有顯著性增加。
肌電訊號（EMG）峰值會隨者負荷而增加（股直肌、股二頭肌與脛前肌），以及股直肌與腓
腸肌有肌電訊號提前發生的現象，除此之外，關節角度變化上，負荷間均沒有顯著影響（髖
關節、膝關節與踝關節）。在下肢各關節角度變化實驗結果發現在髖關節最大角度發生在週
期40%；膝關節最大角度發生在週期25%，此為踏板軌跡為最上方。在不同機型，負荷群體
間分析比較下，關節角度變化沒有明顯的統計差異。
The exercise equipment used for strengthening muscle and shaping body is
getting more prevalent due to the increased population and limited space in exercise.
Elliptical trainer is regarded as a good approach with full body motion like
treadmill but reduced impact force. However, unfitting exercise trainers and
working over a long period of time cause musculoskeletal disorders. Little
information is known for choosing the comfortable exerciser.
The purpose of this study was to understand the factors affecting the
musculoskeletal uncomfortableness with motion analysis system. The factor was set
to three loads and two type of elliptical trainer. The evaluated parameters of
elliptical trainer include the kinemaic data, center of mass （COM） and
electromyography (EMG).
Ten physically healthy male subjects volunteered for this investigation. None
had ever suffered from upper extremity injuries or disorders. Three resistant loads,
low (70 Watt)、middle (220 Watt) and high (370 Watt), were set to two type of
elliptical trainer, home-used (machine A) and club-used (machine B). Full markers
on body landmarks defined by Vicon polygon model were attached on subjects.
In the result, there was significant difference in both up/down and
anteral/posterial excursion of COM in low load and high loads compared between two
types of elliptical trainer. The excursion ratio of COM, Machine A/Machine B, was
238%、211% and 199% in up/down direction and 156%、154% and 131% in anteral/posterial
direction respectively.
There was significant difference right/left excursion of COM in high load and
low load compared between the same machine. There was no significant difference
for joint angle （hip, knee and ankle）among loading group.
