Peripheral Detection for Abrupt Onset Stimuli Presented via Head-Worn Display

Abstract

Head-worn displays have the potential to assist professionals in a wide variety of contexts by providing heads-up and hands-off information in real-time. For instance, nurses may be able to use head-worn displays to maintain peripheral awareness of the well-being of multiple patients while away from the nurses’ station and the patients’ beds. However, little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of head-worn displays in such contexts. In fact, many studies have shown that head-worn displays can lead to detriments in attention and visual performance. In three experiments, we tested people’s ability to detect simple, abrupt onset stimuli in peripheral vision when using a traditional computer monitor or Google Glass™. When using Google Glass, participants were significantly less likely to detect peripheral events. These data indicate that monocular optical see-through head-worn displays can make it harder to see peripheral stimuli. Stimuli need to be developed for head-worn displays that preserve their benefits for mobile users, while overcoming some of their disadvantages.

Using Google Glass in Nonsurgical Medical Settings: Systematic Review

“…The patient-focused studies aimed to help individuals with motor impairments (8/21, 38%) [ 6 - 13 ], visual impairments (5/21, 24%) [ 14 - 18 ], developmental and psychiatric disorders (2/21, 9%) [ 19 , 20 ], weight management concerns (3/21, 14%) [ 21 - 23 ], allergies (1/21, 5%) [ 26 ], or other health concerns leading them to track specific physiological metrics (2/21, 10%) [ 24 , 25 ]. The clinician-focused studies analyzed Google Glass use in student training (9/30, 30%) [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 52 ], disaster relief (4/30, 13%) [ 27 - 30 ], diagnostics (2/30, 7%) [ 32 , 50 ], nursing (1/30, 3%) [ 33 ], autopsy and postmortem examination (1/30, 3%) [ 53 ], wound care (1/30, 3%) [ 54 ], behavioral sciences (1/30, 3%) [ 31 ], and various medical specialties, including cardiology (3/30, 10%) [ 43 - 45 ], radiology (3/30, 10%) [ 39 , 42 , 47 ], neurology (1/30, 3%) [ 34 ], anesthesiology (1/30, 3%) [ 36 ], pulmonology (1/30, 3%) [ 51 ], toxicology (1/30, 3%) [ 55 ], and dermatology (1/30, 3%) [ 56 ].…”

“…In total, 40 studies were conducted in the United States [ 6 - 9 , 13 - 18 , 20 - 24 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 37 - 41 , 43 - 52 , 54 - 57 ], three in Germany [ 25 , 26 , 53 ], two in United Kingdom [ 10 , 11 ], China [ 34 , 36 ], and one each in Australia [ 33 ], Switzerland [ 42 ], Mexico [ 19 ], Netherlands [ 12 ], Norway [ 30 ], and Italy [ 28 ]. Less than half of the included studies (19/51, 37%) were conducted in a laboratory setting [ 6 - 9 , 12 , 14 , 16 - 19 , 21 - 24 , 27 , 31 , 33 , 42 , 50 ], 13 (25%) in a hospital setting [ 32 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 53 - 56 ], seven (14%) in a classroom or clinical student training setting [ 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 47 , 48 , 52 ], three in patient residences (6%) [ 13 , 15 ,…”

“…Of the 13 studies that did report participant age information, seven enrolled young adults (average age or age range ≤35 years) [ 6 , 18 , 22 - 25 , 53 ], three enrolled adults (average age or age range >36 and <60 years) [ 9 , 16 , 17 ], two enrolled older adults (average age or age range ≥60 years) [ 10 , 12 ] and one study reported an age range of 46-70 years [ 11 ]. Sample size ranged from 1-106 participants, with a median of 12 and a mean of 22 participants per study; 29 enrolled <30 [ 6 , 7 , 9 - 14 , 16 - 21 , 23 - 27 , 30 , 38 - 40 , 43 - 45 , 48 , 53 , 54 ] and 10 had ≥30 participants [ 22 , 31 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 56 ]. Some of the studies (12/51, 23.5%) did not report the number of participants [ 8 , 15 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 42 , 46 , 50 , 51 , 55 ].…”

“…None of the studies reported information about participants’ race and ethnicity. Most (31/51, 61%) were pilot or feasibility studies [ 6 - 16 , 18 , 20 - 22 , 24 , 26 - 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 47 , 48 , 53 - 56 ], six were randomized controlled trials (6/51, 12%) [ 30 , 31 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 52 ], five were exploratory studies (5/51, 10%) [ 42 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 ], five were case studies (5/51, 10%) [ 17 , 23 , 34 , 46 , 51 ], and four were quasi-experimental (4/51, 8%) [ 19 , 25 , 39 , 43 ]. None of the studies included any follow-up with participants after completion of the intervention.…”

The Effect of Conventional Screens vs. Head-Mounted Displays on Alarm Monitoring Strategies

“…Unfortunately, previous research has shown that visual stimulus changes are harder to detect in the peripheral field of vision (Wolfe, O'Neill, & Bennett, 1998). Pascale et al (2015) showed that this effect is even stronger on a HMD compared to a conventional screen.…”