Tachistoscopic Study on the Impact of Net Quantity and Dosage Strength Proximity on Dosage Strength Recognition in Prescription Drug Labels

Abstract

A study was conducted to assess the impact of two different drug label layouts on pharmacy practitioners' ability to correctly extract critical information. Labels were shown to 43 participants under time-pressure conditions, using tachistoscopic presentation. The two layouts did not differ in terms of recognition accuracy, and the anticipated interference between two label elements, dosage strength and net quantity (number of tablets/capsules), when located in close proximity to each other, was not observed. Successive reduction in exposure time (200, 100 and 50 ms) resulted in an increased dosage strength recognition error rate, but the effect was independent of the distance between the dosage strength and net quantity. Possible explanations, as well as the benefit of using tachistoscopic presentation to assess the impact of design changes on user performance are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

R. W.

(1989). Human Performance Engineering Using Human Factors/Ergonomics to Achieve Computer System Usability. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Benschop

(1998). What is a tachistoscope?Historical explorations of an instrument. Science in Context, Vol. 11, No. 1.

Bojko

Buffardi

Lew

G. S.

Israelski

(2006). Eye tracking study on the impact of the manufacturer's logo and multilingual description on drug selection performance. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES). San Francisco, CA.

Bojko

Gaddy

Lew

G. S.

Quinn

Israelski

(2005). Evaluation of drug label designs using eye tracking. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES). Orlando, FL.

Breitmeyer

B. G.

Ogmen

(2000). Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update. Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 62, No. 8.

Christ

R. E.

(1975). Review and analysis of color coding research for visual displays. Human Factors, Vol. 17, No. 6.

Estes

W. K.

Taylor

H. A.

(1964). A detection method and probabilistic models for assessing information processing from brief visual displays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 52, No. 2.

Gibson

J. J.

(1966). The causes of deficient perception. In The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Mackworth

N. H.

(1976). Ways of recording line of sight. In Monty

R. A.

Senders

J. W.

Eye Movements and Psychological Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Pomerantz

J. R.

(2006). Colour as a Gestalt: Pop out with basic features and with conjunctions. Visual Cognition, Vol. 14, No. 4–8.

11.

Quinn

Bojko

Gaddy

Israelski

(2006). Better drug labeling for pharmacists. Ergonomics in Design, Vol. 14, No. 1.

12.

Rolls

E. T.

Tovée

M. J.

Panzeri

(1999). The neurophysiology of backward visual masking: Information analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 11, No. 3.

13.

Ryan

T. A.

Schwartz

C. B.

(1956). Speed of perception as a function of mode of representation. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 1.

14.

Turvey

M. T.

(1973). On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli. Psychological Review, Vol. 80, No. 1.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

Andre

A. D.

(1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and objectness of information integration. Human Factors, Vol. 32, No. 1.

16.

Wickens

C. D.

Carswell

C. M.

(1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, Vol. 37. No. 3.

17.

Yantis

Johnston

J. C.

(1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, Vol. 16, No. 1.