| Literature DB >> 35013628 |
Jia-Wei Ren1, Jun Yao1, Ju Wang1, Hao-Yun Jiang1, Xue-Cheng Zhao2.
Abstract
In their continuing battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, medical workers in hospitals worldwide need to wear safety glasses and goggles to protect their eyes from the possible transmission of the virus. However, they work for long hours and need to wear a mask and other personal protective equipment, which causes their protective eye wear to fog up. This fogging up of eye wear, in turn, has a substantial impact in the speed and accuracy of reading information on the interface of electrocardiogram (ECG) machines. To gain a better understanding of the extent of the impact, this study experimentally simulates the fogging of protective goggles when viewing the interface with three variables: the degree of fogging of the goggles, brightness of the screen, and color of the font of the cardiovascular readings. This experimental study on the target recognition of digital font is carried out by simulating the interface of an ECG machine and readability of the ECG machine with fogged eye wear. The experimental results indicate that the fogging of the lenses has a significant impact on the recognition speed and the degree of fogging has a significant correlation with the font color and brightness of the screen. With a reduction in screen brightness, its influence on recognition speed shows a v-shaped trend, and the response time is the shortest when the screen brightness is 150 cd/m2. When eyewear is fogged, yellow and green font colors allow a quicker response with a higher accuracy. On the whole, the subjects show a better performance with the use of green font, but there are inconsistencies. In terms of the interaction among the three variables, the same results are also found and the same conclusion can be made accordingly. This research study can act as a reference for the interface design of medical equipment in events where medical staff wear protective eyewear for a long period of time.Entities:
Keywords: Accuracy; Brightness; COVID-19; Color; ECG machine; Fogging; Reaction time; Recognition efficiency; Target recognition
Year: 2022 PMID: 35013628 PMCID: PMC8730785 DOI: 10.1016/j.displa.2021.102148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Displays ISSN: 0141-9382 Impact factor: 2.167
Fig. 1Fogged goggle lenses.
Fig. 2Interface of standard and simulated ECG interfaces.
Fig. 3Font selection.
Fig. 4Color selection.
Fig. 5Goggles with different degrees of fogginess.
Fig. 6Shooting images of the blurred view of the interface.
Fig. 7Results of interface images viewed through blurred lenses.
Fig. 8Experimental setup.
Fig. 9Experimental process.
Mean and standard deviations of reaction time and rate of accuracy based on the independent variables.
| Independent variable | Reaction time (ms) | Rate of accuracy (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level of fogginess (LF) | Mean | Std. Error | Mean | Std. Error |
| 7 | 951.57 | 42.828 | 0.770 | 0.019 |
| 9 | 793.78 | 27.916 | 0.872 | 0.016 |
| 11 | 741.56 | 26.974 | 0.905 | 0.016 |
| 120 | 721.84 | 29.657 | 0.886 | 0.015 |
| Color (C) | ||||
| Green | 800.57 | 33.225 | 0.871 | 0.017 |
| Yellow | 790.08 | 33.360 | 0.835 | 0.019 |
| Blue | 816.49 | 34.518 | 0.870 | 0.016 |
| Brightness (L) | ||||
| 70 cd/m2 | 863.86 | 40.821 | 0.831 | 0.019 |
| 150 cd/m2 | 743.06 | 27.102 | 0.859 | 0.017 |
| 350 cd/m2 | 767.38 | 30.725 | 0.883 | 0.016 |
MANOVA results of reaction time and rate of accuracy.
| Effect | F | Df | Sig. | Eta Squared |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reaction time | ||||
| LF | 29.148 | 3.00 | 0.000 | 0.726 |
| C | 9.737 | 2.00 | 0.002 | 0.364 |
| L | 3.319 | 2.00 | 0.048 | 0.163 |
| LF*C | 2.986 | 6.00 | 0.021 | 0.374 |
| LF*L | 0.350 | 6.00 | 0.904 | 0.065 |
| C*L | 0.675 | 4.00 | 0.614 | 0.078 |
| LF*C*L | 2.986 | 12.00 | 0.011 | 0.599 |
| Rate of accuracy | ||||
| LF | 10.013 | 3.00 | 0.000 | 0.589 |
| C | 5.693 | 2.00 | 0.016 | 0.449 |
| L | 2.366 | 2.00 | 0.130 | 0.253 |
| LF*C | 2.529 | 6.00 | 0.035 | 0.265 |
| LF*L | 0.342 | 6.00 | 0.911 | 0.047 |
| C*L | 0.259 | 4.00 | 0.902 | 0.036 |
| LF*C*L | 1.349 | 12.00 | 0.207 | 0.162 |
Fig. 10ANOVA results: Screen brightness.
Fig. 11Interaction between font color and degree of fogging of the goggles in terms of reaction time.
Fig. 12Interaction between font color and the degree of fogging of the goggles in terms of rate of accuracy.
Fig. 13Interaction among font color, degree of fogging of the goggles and screen brightness in terms of reaction time.