Three experiments examined the effect of hard-copy print and CRT screens of different resolution/addressability ratios (RAR) on accommodation and visual search performance. Three different display modes were generated with an IBM personal computer and a Princeton Graphics Terminal: capital letters in high-RAR mode, capital letters in low-RAR mode, and capital letters in high-RAR mode programmed to simulate the low-RAR mode. Same-sized letters were also presented on hard-copy print. Experiment 1 demonstrated that accommodation to hard-copy print and high-RAR screens was more accurate than to low-RAR screens. In Experiment 2 the spatial frequency channels activated by each display were evaluated by measuring the effect of display adaptation on the contrast-sensitivity function. The results suggested that high-RAR screens and hard-copy print activated higher-frequency channels than did low-RAR screens. In Experiment 3 significantly better visual search performance was obtained for high-RAR screens and for hard-copy print than for low-RAR screens. It was concluded that screen RAR is an important variable to consider in the design of CRTs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blakemore, C., and Campbell, F. W. (1969). On the existence of neurons in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. Journal of Physiology, 203, 237–260.
2.
Campbell, F. W., and Robson, J. G. (1968). Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. Journal of Physiology, 197, 551–556.
3.
Charman, W. N., and Tucker, J. (1977). Dependence of accommodation response on the spatial frequency spectrum of the observed object. Vision Research, 17, 129–139.
4.
Cushman, W. H. (1984). Reading from microfiche, from a VDT, and from a printed page: Subjective fatigue and performance. A preliminary report. In E. Grandjean (Ed.), Ergonomics and health in modern offices (pp. 322–328). London: Taylor and Francis.
5.
Cushman, W. H. (1986). Reading from microfiche, a VDT, and the printed page: Subjective fatigue and performance. Human Factors, 28, 63–73.
6.
Dainoff, M. H., Happ, A., and Crane, P. (1981). Visual fatigue and occupational stress in VDT operators. Human Factors, 23, 421–438.
7.
Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N., and Minuto, A. (1987). Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a single-variable explanation. Human Factors, 29, 269–299.
8.
Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Finn, R., Haupt, B., and Minuto, A. (1987). Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29, 497–517.
9.
Gould, J. D., and Grischkowsky, N. (1984a). Doing the same work with hard copy and cathode ray tube (CRT) computer terminals. Human Factors, 26, 323–337.
10.
Gould, J. D., and Grischkowsky, N. (1984b). Doing the same work with paper and cathode ray tube displays (CRT). In E. Grandjean (Ed.), Ergonomics and health in modern offices (pp. 329–338). London: Taylor and Francis.
11.
Gunarsson, E., and Soderberg, I. (1980). Eyestrain resulting from VDT work at the Swedish Telecommunications Administration. Eye changes and visual strain during various working procedures. Stockholm: National Board of Occupational Safety and Health.
12.
Helander, M. G., Billingsley, P. A., and Schurick, J.M. (1984). An evaluation of human factors research on visual display terminals in the workplace. In F. A. Muckler (Ed.), Human factors review: 1984 (pp. 55–129). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
13.
Hennessy, R. T., and Leibowitz, H. W. (1972). Laser optometer incorporating the Badal principle. Behavior Research, Methods and Instrumentation, 4, 237–239.
14.
Holler, H., Kundi, M., Schmid, H., Stidl, H., Thaler, A., and Winter, N. (1975). Stress and strain on the eyes produced by work with display screens. Vienna: Austrian Trade Union Associations.
15.
Jaschinski-Kruza, W. (1984). Transient myopia after visual work. Ergonomics, 27, 1181–1189.
16.
Johnson, C. A. (1976). Effects of luminance and stimulus distance on accommodation and visual resolution. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 66, 138–142.
17.
Krueger, H. (1980). Ophthalmological aspects of work with display workstations. In E. Grandjean and E. Vigliani (Eds.), Ergonomic aspects of visual display terminals (pp. 31–40). London: Taylor and Francis.
18.
Leibowitz, H. W., and Owens, D. A. (1975). Anomalous myopias and the intermediate dark focus of accommodation. Science, 189, 646–648.
19.
Leibowitz, H. W., and Owens, D. A. (1978). New evidence for the intermediate position of relaxed accommodation. Documenta Ophthalmologia, 46, 133–147.
20.
Lunn, R., and Banks, W. P. (1986). Visual fatigue and spatial frequency adaptation to video displays of text. Human Factors, 28, 457–464.
21.
Mourant, R. R., Lakshmanan, R., and Chantadisai, R. (1981). Visual fatigue and cathode ray tube display terminals. Human Factors, 23, 529–540.
22.
Murch, C. M., and Beaton, R. J. (1988). Matching display resolution and addressability to human visual capacity. Displays, 9, 23–26.
23.
National Research Council (1983). Video display, work, and vision. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24.
Nordquist, T., Ohlsson, K., and Nilsson, L. G. (1986). Fatigue and reading of text on videotex. Human Factors, 28, 353–363.
25.
Owens, D. A. (1980). A comparison of accommodation responsiveness and contrast sensitivity for sinusoidal gratings. Vision Research, 20, 159–167.
26.
Owens, D. A., and Wolf-Kelly, K. (1987). Near work, visual fatigue, and variations of oculomotor tonus. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 28, 743–749.
27.
Post, R. B., Johnson, C. A., and Owens, D. A. (1985). Does performance of tasks affect the resting focus of accommodation?American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 62, 533–537.
28.
Raymond, T., Lindblad, I. M., and Leibowitz, H. (1984). The effect of contrast on sustained detection. Vision Research, 24, 183–188.
29.
Rupp, B. A., McVey, B. W., and Taylor, S. E. (1984). Image quality and the accommodation response. In E. Grandjean (Ed.), Ergonomics and health in modern offices (pp. 254–259). London: Taylor and Francis.
30.
Sauter, S. L., Arndt, R., and Gottlieb, M. (1981). A controlled survey of working conditions and health problems of VDT operators at the New York Times. Unpublished report prepared for the Newspaper Guild. Madison: Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Wisconsin.
31.
Schmidt, M. J., and Camisa, J. M. (1984). Display parameters for improved performance and reduced fatigue: An experimental study. In E. Grandjean (Ed.), Ergonomics and health in modern offices (pp. 265–269). London: Taylor and Francis.
32.
Shahnavaz, H., and Hedman, L. (1984). Visual accommodation changes in VDT operators related to environmental lighting and screen quality. Ergonomics, 27, 1071–1082.
33.
Smith, M. J., Cohen, B. G. F., Stammerjohn, L. W., and Happ, A. (1981). An investigation of health complaints and job stress in video display operations. Human Factors, 23, 387–400.
34.
Zwahlen, H. T., and Hartmann, A. L. (1985). VDT operator pupil diameter changes, accommodation changes, and subjective comfort/discomfort score changes over a working day. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting (pp. 630–634). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
