| Literature DB >> 25192315 |
Jae Won Bang1, Hwan Heo2, Jong-Suk Choi3, Kang Ryoung Park4.
Abstract
With the development of 3D displays, user's eye fatigue has been an important issue when viewing these displays. There have been previous studies conducted on eye fatigue related to 3D display use, however, most of these have employed a limited number of modalities for measurements, such as electroencephalograms (EEGs), biomedical signals, and eye responses. In this paper, we propose a new assessment of eye fatigue related to 3D display use based on multimodal measurements. compared to previous works Our research is novel in the following four ways: first, to enhance the accuracy of assessment of eye fatigue, we measure EEG signals, eye blinking rate (BR), facial temperature (FT), and a subjective evaluation (SE) score before and after a user watches a 3D display; second, in order to accurately measure BR in a manner that is convenient for the user, we implement a remote gaze-tracking system using a high speed (mega-pixel) camera that measures eye blinks of both eyes; thirdly, changes in the FT are measured using a remote thermal camera, which can enhance the measurement of eye fatigue, and fourth, we perform various statistical analyses to evaluate the correlation between the EEG signal, eye BR, FT, and the SE score based on the T-test, correlation matrix, and effect size. Results show that the correlation of the SE with other data (FT, BR, and EEG) is the highest, while those of the FT, BR, and EEG with other data are second, third, and fourth highest, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25192315 PMCID: PMC4208183 DOI: 10.3390/s140916467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Summarized comparisons of previous and proposed methods used to measure eye fatigue.
| Using single modality | Camera-based method [ | Eye blink [ |
Less discomfort to user than the bio-signal-based method because sensors not attached to body Less affected by the movements of muscle, head, or body than the bio-signal-based method. | Lower acquisition speed of images than bio-signal-based method. |
| Bio-signal-based method [ | EOG [ | Faster acquisition speed of data than camera-based method. |
More discomfort to user than the camera-based method because of attachment of sensors to body More affected by the movements of muscle, head, or body than the camera-based method. | |
| Using multiple modalities | Multiple bio-signal based method [ | Multiple bio-signals such as ECG, GSR, and SKT were measured. | Higher accuracy of eye fatigue measurement than single modality-based method. | More discomfort to user because of attachment of multiple sensors, which can induce incorrect eye fatigue measurement. |
| Hybrid method using both bio-signal and camera-based methods | EEG and BR were measured [ |
Higher accuracy of eye fatigue measurement than single modality-based method. Less discomfort to user than multiple bio-signal based method. | The accuracy enhancement of eye fatigue measurements using only two modalities (EEG and BR) is limited. | |
| EEG, BR, and FT were measured( |
Higher accuracy of eye fatigue measurement than single modality-based method. Less discomfort to user than multiple bio-signal-based methods. Higher accuracy of eye fatigue measurement than [ | Additional thermal camera is required. | ||
Figure 1.Experimental procedures used in our research.
Figure 2.Proposed system for the assessment of eye fatigue. (a) Proposed experimental device; (b) Example of experimental environment.
Figure 3.International 10–20 electrode placement system.
Figure 4.Example of sub-block-based template matching algorithm.
Figure 5.Example of measurement of eye blinking. (a) Open eyes; (b) Closed eyes.
Figure 6.Example of detection of face and nose. (a) The detected regions of face and nose in the web-camera image; (b) The defined regions of the face and nose in the thermal camera image.
Figure 7.Example of the measurement region for variation of FT.
Figure 8.Experimental procedure.
Items in questionnaire form for SE.
| I have difficulties in seeing |
| I have a strange feeling around the eyes |
| My eyes feel tired |
| I feel numb |
| I feel dizzy looking at the screen |
| I have a headache |
Figure 9.Comparison of SE scores before and after watching the 3D display.
The average and standard deviation of SE scores.
| Average | 1.623 | 3.478 |
| Standard deviation | 0.582 | 1.37 |
Figure 10.Comparisons of beta band of EEG data before and after watching 3D display.
The average and standard deviation of the EEG signal.
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
| Average | 0.0921 | 0.1091 | 0.0916 | 0.1001 | 0.1059 | 0.1178 | 0.1033 | 0.1102 |
| Standard deviation | 0.0435 | 0.0353 | 0.0368 | 0.0362 | 0.0575 | 0.0526 | 0.046 | 0.0472 |
| P-value | 0.2491 | 0.5279 | 0.5575 | 0.6909 | ||||
| Electrode | F7 | F8 | FC5 | FC6 | ||||
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
| Average | 0.0906 | 0.1165 | 0.0763 | 0.1118 | 0.1081 | 0.1086 | 0.0859 | 0.107 |
| Standard deviation | 0.0347 | 0.0431 | 0.0362 | 0.0823 | 0.0753 | 0.048 | 0.0403 | 0.0347 |
| P-value | 0.0814 | 0.1424 | 0.9812 | 0.1365 | ||||
| Electrode | O1 | O2 | P7 | P8 | ||||
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
| Average | 0.1002 | 0.1159 | 0.1054 | 0.1218 | 0.0769 | 0.103 | 0.0984 | 0.1608 |
| Standard deviation | 0.0494 | 0.0438 | 0.064 | 0.0475 | 0.0369 | 0.0415 | 0.0466 | 0.1343 |
| P-value | 0.3662 | 0.4323 | 0.0795 | 0.1076 | ||||
| Electrode | T7 | T8 | ||||||
| Before | After | Before | After | |||||
| Average | 0.1037 | 0.1324 | 0.0954 | 0.0999 | ||||
| Standard deviation | 0.0668 | 0.0729 | 0.0568 | 0.0429 | ||||
| P-value | 0.2708 | 0.8071 | ||||||
The results of gradient, R2, and correlation between each set of acquired data.
| EEG | −0.33 | 0.1285 | −0.3585 |
| EEG | −0.1154 | 0.0156 | −0.125 |
| EEG | −0.1584 | 0.0421 | −0.2052 |
| BR | 0.0381 | 0.0014 | 0.038 |
| BR | 0.5582 | 0.4427 | 0.6653 |
| FT | 0.4593 | 0.3015 | 0.5491 |
Correlation matrix of four measured data of before and after (or in the last one minute) watching 3D display.
| EEG | 1 | −0.3585 | −0.125 | −0.2052 | −0.6887 |
| BR | −0.3585 | 1 | 0.038 | 0.6653 | 0.3448 |
| FT | −0.125 | 0.038 | 1 | 0.5491 | 0.4621 |
| SE | −0.2052 | 0.6653 | 0.5491 | 1 | 1.0092 |
Figure 11.Comparison of BR before watching the 3D display and in the last 1 minute (of 30 min) of watching the 3D display.
The average and standard deviation of the eye BR.
| Average | 18.667 | 22.6 |
| Standard deviation | 9.832 | 10.041 |
Figure 12.Comparison of FT amplitude before and after watching the 3D display.
The average and standard deviation of FT.
| Average | 15221.233 | 15099.446 |
| Standard deviation | 94.511 | 79.937 |
The calculated Cohen's d values before and after watching the 3D display (In the case of the BR, the calculated Cohen's d before and in the last 1 min of watching the 3D display).
| EEG | 0.6644 | Large |
| BR | 0.3958 | Medium |
| FT | 1.3914 | Large |
| SE | 1.763 | Large |
Figure 13.Calculated Cohen's d values of each measurement.
Figure 14.Calculated correlation value between each set of measurement.
Figure 15.Calculated summed value of all the correlation values.