The transition from CRT to LCD monitors: Effects on monitor placement and possible consequences in viewing distance and body postures

Marmaras, Nicolas; Nathanael, Dimitris; Zarboutis, Nikos

doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.01.005

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To shed additional light on potential perceptual-cognitive factors, we examined whether media differences in learning efficiency would be tied to differences in the frequency of using markup and note-taking tools (see Piolat, Olive, & Kellogg, 2005; Spencer, 2006) and whether there would be any differences in learning efficiency within the OSL group between cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD). The display-type factor was included in the design in light of studies finding differences between the two display types that could potentially affect both objective and subjective aspects of text learning (Kong-King & Chin-Chiuan, 2000; Marmaras, Nathanael, & Zarboutis, 2008; Menozzi, Lang, Näpflin, Zeller, & Krueger, 2001; Sheedy, Subbaram, Zimmerman, & Hayes, 2005). The texts were made long enough (2–4 pages) to create potential media differences in paging-scrolling difficulty as well, though this factor was not systematically manipulated or analyzed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper.

Ackerman¹,

Goldsmith²

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

255

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite immense technological advances, learners still prefer studying text from printed hardcopy rather than from computer screens. Subjective and objective differences between on-screen and on-paper learning were examined in terms of a set of cognitive and metacognitive components, comprising a Metacognitive Learning Regulation Profile (MLRP) for each study media. Participants studied expository texts of 1000-1200 words in one of the two media and for each text they provided metacognitive prediction-of-performance judgments with respect to a subsequent multiple-choice test. Under fixed study time (Experiment 1), test performance did not differ between the two media, but when study time was self-regulated (Experiment 2) worse performance was observed on screen than on paper. The results suggest that the primary differences between the two study media are not cognitive but rather metacognitive--less accurate prediction of performance and more erratic study-time regulation on screen than on paper. More generally, this study highlights the contribution of metacognitive regulatory processes to learning and demonstrates the potential of the MLRP methodology for revealing the source of subjective and objective differences in study performance among study conditions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper.

Ackerman¹,

Goldsmith²

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

255

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although specific tasks can be done by automated vision system, human vision still plays a vital role in industrial inspection, military target acquisition and video display tasks (Nalanagula et al 2006, Marmaras et al 2008, Koller, et al 2009, Mclntire et al 2010, Kujala and Saariluoma 2011. The visual lobe is an important aspect of human vision and is used to define the limit of peripheral sensitivity for particular target and background characteristics in a single glimpse/fixation without eye scanning movements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of display polarity and luminance contrast on visual lobe shape characteristics

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of display polarity and luminance contrast on visual lobe (effective visual field) shape characteristics was studied using three levels of luminance contrast with combinations of positive and negative polarities. The binocular effective visual field for a detection task, with a peripherally presented target (V) embedded in a homogeneous competing background (Xs), was mapped on 24 imaginary axes passing through the fixation point. The results showed that visual lobes mapped using positive polarity were statistically larger in area, rounder and more regular in shape than those for negative polarity. The medium contrast condition lobes were more symmetric and regular than low contrast condition lobes, and lobe area and perimeter increased with increasing luminance contrast ratio. Under the interaction of positive polarity and high luminance contrast, visual lobes were found to be larger, smoother and rounder. The high level of luminance and contrast however resulted in a higher degree of visual discomfort. The results indicated that positive polarity and contrast of medium (26:1) to high (41:1) levels are possible display settings for better visual lobe characteristics and better anticipated search performance.Practitioner Summary: The effect of display polarity and luminance contrast on visual lobe shape characteristics was examined with uniform stimulus materials in this study. The results help to identify the optimum display settings for luminance contrast and display polarity to enhance lobe shape characteristics and hence search performance in industrial inspection tasks.

show abstract

“…Coincidentally, when subjects were allowed to position their monitors to their own preference they placed the monitors 60–100 cm from their eyes, declined from 0–160°. 8 Marmaras et al 14 examined the effect of digital liquid crystal displays and the effect on monitor positioning and found that, when compared with older cathode ray tube systems, workers had a tendency to place monitors closer to 1 m from their eyes. El Shallaly and Cuschieri 15 noted that, because digital and liquid crystal display technologies allow the production of larger VDT terminals, the minimum viewing distance remains ∼1 m from the eyes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitor Height Ergonomics: A Comparison of Operating Room Video Display Terminals

Kelts

McMains

Chen

et al. 2015

Allergy�Rhinol (Providence)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A surgeon's eyes should be positioned 1 meter (m) distant and no more than 15° below the top of an operating monitor (0.27 m). We sought to determine which operating room video display terminal can best accommodate ergonomically optimized gaze during surgery. Floor to eye height was measured for surgeons in seated, perched, and standing positions. These ranges were then compared to vertical displacement ranges for monitors measured from floor to top of the screen. Eye height was measured for standing (1.56–1.80 m), perched (1.40–1.65 m), and seated (1.10–1.32 m) positions. The minimum distance (min) between the floor and the top of the monitor and the vertical mobility range (VR) of the monitor were measured throughout a tertiary medical center including towers with boom arms (TcB) (min: 1.58 m, VR: 0.37 m), towers without booms (TsB) (min: 1.82 m, VR: 0.025 m), ceiling mounted booms (CMB) (min: 1.34 m:, VR: 1.04 m), and portable monitors (PM) (min: 1.73 m, VR: 0.04 m). The tangent of 15° declination was used to calculate a correction factor to determine the minimum optimal ergonomic display height. The correction factor was subtracted from the eye height at each position to determine the lowest target height and the highest target floor to eye distance for each position. Analysis of variance with least significant difference post hoc testing identified all minimum distances and vertical ranges to be statistically different (p < 0.001). Monitor vertical displacement varied between styles of carts. CMB video display terminal systems can accommodate standing, perched and the tallest seated surgeons. TcB, TsB and PM systems cannot adequately accommodate all standing, perched or seated surgeons.

show abstract

The transition from CRT to LCD monitors: Effects on monitor placement and possible consequences in viewing distance and body postures

Cited by 15 publications

References 20 publications

Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper.

Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper.

Effect of display polarity and luminance contrast on visual lobe shape characteristics

Monitor Height Ergonomics: A Comparison of Operating Room Video Display Terminals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About