Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Cathode ray tube (CRT) display and liquid crystal display (LCD) were compared for their suitability in visual tasks. For this purpose visual
performance was assessed by means of a search task carried out using both displays with different levels of ambient light. In addition,
suitability was rated subjectively by users of visual display units (VDUs). Error frequency for search tasks carried out using LCD were
significantly smaller when compared to error frequency for tasks at CRT. LCD gave rise to 34% less errors than did CRT. Reaction time in
search task was found to be significantly shorter using LCD when tasks were carried out in darkness. Subjective rated suitability of LCD was
scored twice as high as suitability of CRT. Results indicate that LCD used in this experiment may give better viewing conditions in
comparison to CRT display. 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cathode ray tube (CRT); Liquid crystal display (LCD); Visual performance
1. Introduction
Liquid crystal displays (LCD) have become more and
more popular in visual display units (VDUs) (Cladis [1],
Firester [2]). Size of actual LCD can cover the needs of
most applications running on computers. For many reasons
LCD might become more important and might replace cathode ray tube (CRT) displays in many applications. Weight
and volume of LCD are among most the important advantages when compared to CRT VDU. A 17 00 CRT typically
occupies an area of 40 cm 45 cm (width depth). If
according to suggested settings for work place (e.g. DIN
4549 [3]) a desk of 120 cm 80 cm is considered, a 17 00
CRT may occupy about one-fifth of the surface of the desk.
Dimensions of LCD monitors are smaller, therefore requiring less space and facilitating handling of the monitor. From
an ecological point of view operation of an LCD is more
advantageous than that of a CRT. Owing to lower power
consumption, LCDs emit less heat, therefore causing less
problems in air conditioning at offices where many displays
run at the same time. Low power consumption also gives
LCD an advantage over CRT with regard to potential of
electromagnetic radiation for causing possible effects on
biological matter.
Notebook PCs are very popular during travel or at any job
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 41 1 632 39 81; Fax: 41 1 632 11 73.
0141-9382/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0141-938 2(98)00051-1
pixel at LCD is square wave-like causing less or no perception of flicker. Flickering light is supposed to disturb control
of eye movements (Neary [7]), possibly a cause for visual
complaints. Drawbacks of use of LCD are, among others,
reduced brightness and restricted viewing angle (Nelson
[4]).
VDUs are often used in the presence of ambient light.
Ambient light is reflected on the front of the screen thereby
reducing contrast of information displayed. Contrast reduction can be controlled by measures applied on the surface of
the screen. With regards to material used, glass in CRT and
organic material in LCD, LCD may have an advantage over
CRT displays when used in bright ambient light. To our
knowledge, reflectivity of LCD has not yet been assessed
and compared to reflectivity of CRT. Activation of pixels of
LCD might change reflectivity of the display. To account for
this possibility, reflectivity should also be assessed while
information is presented on the display.
Insufficient optical quality of displays is a potential candidate for causing visual complaints (Cole [8], Jackson [9],
Krueger [10], Laubli [11]). The domain of visual complaints
is complex. Inter-individual variations in physiological and
psychological predispositions of VDU users are probably
amongst the most confounding factors in localization of
causes of the complaints. An accurate assessment of optical
quality of displays may help in identification of causes for
complaints. In accordance with the concept of strain and
stress (Hacker [12]) we may deduce that complaints are
closely related to visual performance. Good optical quality
of a display constitutes a low visual strain and facilitates
reading (Grisham [13], Legge [14]). Scientific literature
offers some papers on optical quality of VDU and visual
performance (Edwards [15], Farrell [6], Montegut [16],
Roufs [17]). MacKenzie et al. [18] compared user performance in manipulative tasks carried out using CRT or LCD.
In their experiments subjects had to select targets on the
display by using a mouse. Time between successive button
down actions of the mouse were recorded and defined as
movement time. MacKenzie et al. [18] found that LCD gave
rise to 34% longer movement times than did CRT. Saito et
al. [19] recorded several visual functions during different
tasks carried out using different displays, such as LCD,
CRT and plasma displays. Visual accommodation was
found to be faster while using CRT when compared to
tasks where LCD or plasma display was used.
Based on actual results reported in the literature it is
difficult to draw a conclusion on the suitability of a particular display technology to improve viewing conditions. We
therefore set up an experiment by means of which visual
performance was assessed using either LCD or CRT at
otherwise identical conditions.
There are many parameters contributing to an overall
visual performance. As a first attempt in investigating suitability of mentioned techniques we were interested in parameters related to visual performance at a common task at a
VDU. If office work is considered to be a common task at
2. Method
2.1. Procedure
Performance was evaluated by means of a search task in
which we recorded reaction times for detecting targets and
amount of errors which occurred during the task. The paradigm used in our task was adapted from paradigmata used to
assess visual performance in human factors in lighting (see
Boyce [20]) and from paradigmata used in basic visual
science (e. g. Fiorentini [21], Treisman [22]). Adaptations
aimed to consider particular conditions of office work. A
two-alternative forced-choice task was set up using an
uppercase letter F as target and uppercase letters E
as distractors. Target and distractors were arranged in a 20
20 matrix with equally spaced horizontal and vertical
gaps. Target was shown in 50% of the displays. The task
consisted in scanning the display and pressing either the
yes or the no button of an answer box, depending
on whether target was seen or not. Subjects were informed
after each trial on the correctness of the given answer. An
acoustic feedback was used for this purpose. The subjects
were asked to accomplish the task within a minimum time
avoiding errors.
In order to account for the fact that ambient light may
vary depending on location of workplace, experiments were
carried out at two levels of ambient light. In one condition,
further on referred to as darkness, horizontal and vertical
illumination was about 50 lux. In the other condition,
further on referred to as brightness, vertical illumination
was 250 lux while horizontal illumination was set to
550 lux. Only diffused light consisting out of indirect
daylight or artificial light reflected from the surrounding
walls was used to install described levels of ambient light.
Each subject completed the task at both displays and on both
conditions of ambient light. The four different settings, i. e. two
displays used at two different conditions of illumination, were
Table 1
Reaction time (RT) and error frequency. Experimental settings: CRT-task, LCD-task, darkness or brightness. First to third row show mean and standard
deviation for reaction time in seconds. Only differences in third row are statistically significant. Bonferroni adjusted Students t-test shows significant
difference of mean of CRT-task and LCD-task for dark ambient light. Fourth row denotes median and quartile of errors for each setting. Total number of
errors is reported in fifth row. Median and quartiles of pooled error frequency for CRT-task and for LCD-task are shown in the sixth row (Standard deviations
appear in parantheses)
CRT-task
Brightness
Darkness
LCD-task
Brightness
Darkness
3.02 (1.88)
4.11 (2.69)
3.52 (2.23)
7 [4;9]
3.48 (2.30)
4.70 (2.91)
3.93 (2.60)
6.5 [5;10]
3.52 (2.47)
4.07 (3.00)
3.64 (2.60)
4 [3.5;7.5]
2.91 (2.03)
4.18 (2.87)
3.25 (2.34)
5 [4;6]
71
12.5 [9;19]
74
43
8.5 [6;11]
53
presence of target, error detection of target and their interaction. We therefore carried out post hoc ANOVA on a
reduced data set in which only trials with targets were
considered. Table 1 shows mean values and standard deviations for reaction time as well as error frequency assessed
using the reduced data set.
Reaction times assessed for displays without target are
not shown. First two rows list mean and standard deviation
of reaction time for trials in which the target was detected
(first row) and in which the target was missed (second row).
None of the difference in reaction time were significant
within each of the first two rows. If an ANOVA is run
considering reaction time of all trials at which target was
present, independent of whether target was detected or
missed, reaction time turns out to depend significantly on
settings (F(3) 2.81, p 0.05). A Bonferroni adjusted
matrix of pairwise comparison of data of the third row
reveals that in dark ambient light a significant (p
0.05) longer reaction time results for CRT-task (3.93 s)
when compared to LCD-task (3.25 s) at same ambient light.
As only few errors (5 out of 800 possible) were done at
displays without target, trials without target were not taken
into account in the analysis on error frequency. Settings
were found to exhibit a significant influence on error
Table 2
Significance of difference in error frequency. Each entry denotes p value for
difference in error frequency between two settings. Probabilities listed in
first four lines were calculated using Wilcoxon rank test whereas probability listed in the last line of the table refers to two tailed t-test statistics for
paired samples
CRT-task
LCD-task
Bright
Dark
Bright
Dark
0.0011
CRT-task
Bright Dark
LCD-task
Bright Dark
1
.587
.015
.007
1
.147
1
.070
.005
Fig. 1. Box plot of scores. Scores (median, quartiles, extreme values) were
assessed by means of the question How much would you like to work
using this screen in this ambient light? using a scale of six intervals. *
outlier.
4. Discussion
Reaction time was found to depend on learning effect.
Apparently, two training sessions before the experiment
were not enough to eliminate the effect. Learning effect
disappeared after reducing amount of data. Therefore, learning effect can be supposed to be weak and will probably not
interfere with conclusions reported at the end of this article.
Although time needed to search the display is reduced by
learning, error frequency is found to be constant throughout
the experiment. We might therefore postulate that accuracy
of detection could not be improved whereas speed of
processing result of detection was improved by training.
In our experiment speed of processing depends on motor
as well as on mental skills, both of which can be improved
by training. Given these circumstances we may conclude
that optimal viewing conditions are imperative for ergonomics if accuracy is a significant requirement in a task
because no training can make up for poor viewing conditions in order to improve accuracy of vision.
Among reasons for involuntary missing a target in our
task are, low visibility of the target and an insufficient attention. Visibility may be biased by reflections and by inhomogeneous emission characteristics of the displays. As was
shown above, it is unlikely that reflections interfere with
visibility of target. Subjective estimation of reflections
(Table 3) deviates slightly from this assumption. However,
deviations are small. Probably some subjects rated
Table 3
Shorthand remarks on suitability of settings for office work (summary)
CRT
Bright
Dark
LCD
Bright
Dark
3
5
5
2
0
3
6
4
1
0
5
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
2
Total
14
15
References
[1] Patricia E. Cladis, World view of liquid crystal flat panel displays, in:
L.E. Tannas, E. Glenn, J.W. Dorne (Eds.), Flat-panel Display Technologies, Noyes Publications, Parkridge, NJ, 1995.
[2] A.H. Firester, Active matrix technology, in: L.E. Tannas, E. Glenn,
J.W. Dorne (Eds.), Flat-panel Display Technologies, Noyes Publications, Parkridge, NJ, 1995.
[3] DIN 4549 Buromobel, Schreibtische, Buromaschinentische und
Bildschirmtische. Masse. Deutsches Institut fur Normung e. V.,
(Office furniture, desks, desks for office machines and desks for
VDUs.) German Standards Institute, November, 1982.
[4] T.J. Nelson, J.R. Wullert II, Electronic Information Display Technologies, World Scientific, Singapore, 1997.
[5] L.E. Tannas, E. Glenn, J.W. Dorne (Eds.), Flat-panel Display Technologies Noyes Publications, Parkridge, NJ, 1995.
[6] E. Farrell-Joyce, Fitting physical screen parameters to the human eye,
in: J.A.J. Roufs (Ed.), Vision and Visual Dysfunction. The Man
Machine Interface, Mocmillan Press, Hondmills, 1991.
[7] Catherine Neary, A.J. Wilkins, Effects of phosphor on perception and
the control of eye movements, Perception 18 (1995) 257264.
[8] B.L. Cole, Jennifer D. Maddocks, Effects of VDUs on the eyes:
Report of a 6-year epidemiological study, Optometry and Vision
Science 73 (8) (1996) 512528.
[9] A.J. Jackson, E.S. Barnett, A.B. Stevens, M. McClure, C. Patterson,
M.J. McReynolds, Vision screening, eye examination and risk assessment of display screen users in a large regional teaching hospital,
Ophthalmics and Physiological Optics 17 (3) (1997) 187195.
[10] H. Krueger, Visual function and monitor use, in: J.A.J. Roufs (Ed.),
Vision and Visual Dysfunction. The ManMachine Interface,
Mocmillan Press, Hondmills, 1991.
[11] T. Laubli, W. Hunting, E. Grandjean, Postural and visual loads at
VDT workplaces. II: Lighting conditions and visual impairments,
Ergonomics 24 (1981) 933944.
[12] W. Hacker, Allgemeine Arbeits- und Ingenieurpsychologie (General
Work- and Engineering-Psychology), 2, Huber, Bern, 1978.
[13] J.D. Grisham, Melissa M. Sheppard, Wendy U. Tran, Visual symptoms and reading performance, Optometry and Vision Science 70 (5)
(1993) 384391.
[14] G.E. Legge, G.S. Rubin, A. Luebker, Psychophysics of reading V:
The role of contrast in normal vision, Vision Research 27 (1987)
11651177.
[15] C.B. Edwards, V.J. Demczuk, Legibility of visual display terminals
and an investigation of subjective image quality ratings with respect
to physical image quality measures, in: H. Luczak, A. Cakir, G. Cakir
(Eds.), Work with Display Units 92, Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amsterdam, 1993.
[16] M.J. Montegut, B. Bridgeman, J. Sykes, High refresh rate and oculomotor adaptation facilitate reading from video displays, Spatial
Vision 10 (4) (1997) 305322.
[17] J.A.J. Roufs, M.C. Boschman, Visual comfort and performance, in:
J.A.J. Roufs (Ed.), Vision and Visual Dysfunction. The Man
Machine Interface, Mocmillan Press, Hondmills, 1991.
[18] I.S. MacKenzie, S. Riddersma, Effects of output display and controldisplay gain on human performance in interactive systems, Behaviour
and Information Technology 13 (5) (1994) 328337.
10
[24] ISO 9241 - 7 (1998): Ergonomic requirements for office work with
visual display terminal (VDTs) Part 7: Requirements for display
with reflections. Gene`ve, Switzerland, 1998.
[25] W.L. Shebilske, Baseball batters support an ecological efference
mediation theory of natural event perception, Acta Psychologica 63
(1986) 117131.
[26] DIN 66234. Bildschirmarbeitsplatze. Gruppierung von Information
und Daten. Hinweise und Beispiele. Beiblatt 1 zu DIN 66234, Teil
3. Deutsches Institut fur Normung e. V., Marz 1983. (Workplaces
with VDUs. Grouping of Information and Data. Remarks and Examples. German Standards Institute, March 1983).
[27] M.I. Posner, Chronometric Explorations of Mind, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978.