The effects of physical image quality on reading and on perceived image quality from CRT and hard copy displays (photographs) were studied. The results showed that as the image quality of a display increased, indicated by an increase in the value of the modulation transfer function area (MTFA), the reading speed and subjective image quality ratings increased. This change in reading speed and perceived image quality occurred similarly for both hard-copy and soft-copy conditions. If the image qualities of the displayed text are similar, hard-copy and softcopy displays will yield equivalent reading speeds.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beaton, R. J. (1984). A human performance based evaluation of quality metrics for hard-copy and soft-copy digital imagery systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
2.
Creed, A., Dennis, I., and Newstead, S. (1987). Proofreading on VDUs. Behavior and Information Technology, 6, 3–13.
3.
Cushman, W. H. (1981). Reading from microfiche, from a VDT, and from the printed page: Subjective fatigue and performance, a preliminary report. In E. Grandjean (Ed.), Ergonomics and health in modern offices (pp. 322–328). London: Taylor & Francis.
4.
Dainty, J. C., and Shaw, R. (1974). Image science: Principles, analysis and evaluation of photographic-type imaging processes. New York: Academic.
5.
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.
6.
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, 497–518.
7.
Gould, J. D., and Grischkowsky, N. (1984). Doing the same work with hard copy and with cathode-ray tube (CRT) computer terminals. Human Factors, 26, 323–337.
8.
Greenhouse, D. S., Bailey, I. L., Howarth, P. A., and Berman, S. M. (1989). Spatial adaptation on video display terminals. In Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE): Vol. 1077. Human vision, visual processing, and digital displays (pp. 27–34). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
9.
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 (pp. 55–129). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
10.
Heppner, F. H., Anderson, J. G. T.Farstrup, A. E., and Weiderman, N. H. (1985). Reading performance on a standardized test is better from print than from computer display. Journal of Reading, 28, 321–325.
11.
Human Factors Society. (1988). American national standard for human factors engineering of visual display terminal workstations. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
12.
Hunter, M. W. (1988). CRT anti-glare treatments, image quality, and human performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
13.
Kak, A. V. (1981). Relationships between readability of printed and CRT-displayed text. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 137–140). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
14.
Monk, A. A. (1983). Errors in proofreading: Evidence for the use of word shape in word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 11, 16–23.
15.
Muter, P., Latremouille, S. A., and Treurniet, W. C. (1982). Extended reading of continuous text on television screens. Human Factors, 24, 501–508.
16.
The Nelson-Denny Reading Test. (1960). Chicago: Riverside.
17.
Snyder, H. L. (1973). Image quality and observer performance. In L. M. Biberman (Ed.), Perception of displayed information (pp. 87–118). New York: Plenum.
18.
Snyder, H. L. (1974). Image quality and face recognition on a television display. Human Factors, 16, 300–307.
19.
Snyder, H. L. (1980). Human visual performance and flat panel display image quality (Tech. Report HFL-80-1/ONR-80-1). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Human Factors Engineering Center.
20.
Snyder, H. L. (1985). Image quality: Measures and visual performance. In L. E. Tannas (Ed.), Flat-panel displays and CRTs (pp. 71–90). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
21.
Snyder, H. L. (1988). Toward the determination of electronic display image quality. In W. B. Rouse (Ed.), Advances in man-machine systems research (Vol. 4, pp. 1–68). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
22.
Snyder, H. L., and Maddox, M. E. (1978). Information transfer from computer-generated dot-matrix displays (Report HFL-78-3 ARO-78-1). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering.
23.
Snyder, H. L., and Maddox, M. E. (1980). On the image quality of dot-matrix displays. Proceedings of the Society for Information Display, 21(1), 3–8.
24.
Switchenko, D. (1984). Reading from CRT versus paper: The CRT-disadvantage hypothesis re-examined. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting (p. 429). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
25.
Task, H. L. (1979) An evaluation and comparison of several measures of image quality for television displays (Tech. Report AMRL-TR-79-7). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
26.
Tinker, M. A. (1955). Examiner's manual for Tinker Speed of Reading Test. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.
27.
Tinker, M. A. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
28.
Wilkinson, R. T., and Robinshaw, M. (1987). Proof-reading: VDU and paper text ompared for speed, accuracy and fatigue. Behavior and Information Technology, 6, 125–133.
29.
Wright, P., and Lickorish, A. (1983). Proof-reading text on screen and paper. Behavior and Information Technology, 2, 227–235.
