Abstract
This study explores the factors affecting reading time, error rate, visual fatigue, and mental workload of subjects using a monocular optical head-mounted display (OHMD). Forty healthy participants were involved in this study using four factors: gender, reading conditions (walking and sitting), font sizes (12-, 16-, 20-, 24-, 28-, and 32-point), and contrast ratios (3.0:1, 7.5:1, 12.0:1, 16.5:1, and 21.0:1). The reading time, error rate, critical fusion frequency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s raw task load index, and visual fatigue scale were the dependent measures. Gender showed no significant effect on reading time or error rate. Reading conditions, font sizes, and contrast ratios had significant effects on reading time. Large font sizes produced the fastest reading times for both walking and sitting conditions. The walking condition produced significantly more visual fatigue and mental workload than the sitting condition. Font size and contrast ratio had significant effects on reading time and error rate. The fastest reading time was found at the 16.5:1 contrast ratio for both walking and sitting conditions. Combined with the 28-point font size, we found the fastest reading time and lowest error rate performance combination. Considering reading conditions, contrast ratios, and font size combinations, the 16.5:1 contrast ratio with 28-point font size in the sitting condition and the 16.5:1 contrast ratio with 32-point font size in the walking condition showed the best reading times and error rates. The results from this study can provide very useful reference information for OHMDs and related product interface designs.
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12652-018-1045-3/MediaObjects/12652_2018_1045_Fig1_HTML.jpg)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12652-018-1045-3/MediaObjects/12652_2018_1045_Fig2_HTML.png)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12652-018-1045-3/MediaObjects/12652_2018_1045_Fig3_HTML.png)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12652-018-1045-3/MediaObjects/12652_2018_1045_Fig4_HTML.png)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12652-018-1045-3/MediaObjects/12652_2018_1045_Fig5_HTML.png)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12652-018-1045-3/MediaObjects/12652_2018_1045_Fig6_HTML.png)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12652-018-1045-3/MediaObjects/12652_2018_1045_Fig7_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ayama M, Ujike H, Iwai W, Funakawa M, Okajima K (2007) Effects of contrast and character size upon legibility of Japanese text stimuli presented on visual display terminal. Opt Rev 14(1):48–56
Bernard M, Liao CH, Mills M (2001) The effects of font type and size on the legibility and reading time of online text by older adults. In: CHI’01 Ext Abstracts Human Factors Computing systems. pp 175–176
Bernard ML, Chaparro BS, Mills MM, Halcomb CG (2002) Examining children’s reading performance and preference for different computer-displayed text. Behav Inf Technol 21(2):87–96
Byers JC (1989) Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary? In: Advances in Industrial Ergonomics Safety. pp 481–485
Chen SJ, Kang YY, Lin CL (2016) Ergonomic evaluation of video game playing. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 7(6):845–853
Chi CF, Lin FT (1998) A comparison of seven visual fatigue assessment techniques in three data-acquisition VDT tasks. Hum Factors 40(4):577–590
Darroch I, Goodman J, Brewster S, Gray P (2005) The effect of age and font size on reading text on handheld computers. In: Human–computer interaction. pp 253–266
Du X, Arya A (2015) Design and evaluation of a learning assistant system with optical head-mounted display (OHMD). In: International conference learning collaboration technologies. pp 75–86
Erra U, Capece N (2017) Engineering an advanced geo-location augmented reality framework for smart mobile devices. J Ambient Intel Hum Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-017-0654-6
Google Inc. (2014) GLASS FAQ. Retrieved. IOP Publishing PhysicsWeb. https://sites.google.com/site/glasscomms/faqs. Accessed 23 July 2013
Hart SG (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 50(9):904–908
Heuer H, Hollendiek G, Kröger H, Römer T (1988) Rest position of the eyes and its effect on viewing distance and visual fatigue in computer display work. Zeitschrift fur experimentelle angewandte Psychologie 36(4):538–566
Hua H, Javidi B (2014) A 3D integral imaging optical see-through head-mounted display. Opt Express 22(11):13484–13491
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2007) American National Standard for human factors engineering of computer workstations (ANSI/HFES Standard No. 100-2007). Human Factors Ergon Soc, Santa Monica
Kang YY, Wang MJJ, Lin R (2009) Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays 30(2):49–52
Kim HR, Jeong JH (2014) The study of visual fatigue by monitor letter contrast with an eye tracker. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 19(4):533–538
Kooi FL (1997) Visual strain: a comparison of monitors and head-mounted displays. Adv Imaging Netw Technol 2949:162–171. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.266346
Lee DS, Ko YH, Shen IH, Chao CY (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays 32(1):1–7
Lin CC (2003) Effects of contrast ratio and text color on visual performance with TFT-LCD. Int J Ind Ergon 31(2):65–72
Lin CC, Huang KC (2009) Effects of color combination and ambient illumination on visual perception time with TFT-LCD. Percept Motor Skills 109(2):607–625
Lin H, Wu FG, Cheng YY (2013) Legibility and visual fatigue affected by text direction, screen size and character size on color LCD e-reader. Displays 34(1):49–58
Lin H, Lin W, Tsai WC, Cheng YY, Wu FG (2014) Effect of the color tablet computer’s polarity and character size on legibility. In: International conference on universal access human–computer interaction. pp 132–143
Lin CC, Chen MT, Huang KC (2015) Effects of viewing angle and contrast ratio on visual performance using TFT-LCD. Int J Eng Res Appl 5(4):55–59
Longley C, Whitaker D (2016) Google Glass Glare: disability glare produced by a head-mounted visual display. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 36(2):167–173
MacIntyre B, Cowan WB (1992) A practical approach to calculating luminance contrast on a CRT. ACM Trans Graph (TOG) 11(4):336–347
Moroney WF, Biers DW, Eggemeier FT, Mitchell JA (1992) A comparison of two scoring procedures with the NASA task load index in a simulated flight task. In: Aerospace and electronics conference. NAECON. Proceedings of IEEE national. pp 734–740
Muensterer OJ, Lacher M, Zoeller C, Bronstein M, Kübler J (2014) Google Glass in pediatric surgery: an exploratory study. Int J Surg 12(4):281–289
Ponton K (2008) Concepts of interface usability and the enhancement of design through eye tracking and psychophysiology. Maritime Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Edinburgh
Rhodes T, Allen S (2014) Through the looking glass: how Google glass will change the performing arts. In: Arts management and technology laboratory. pp 1–12
Shibata T (2002) Head mounted display. Displays 23(1):57–64
Shieh KK, Lin CC (2000) Effects of screen type, ambient illumination, and color combination on VDT visual performance and subjective preference. Int J Ind Ergon 26(5):527–536
Spelke ES (2005) Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. Am Psychol 60(9):950
Tang J (2014) Beginning Google Glass development. Apress, New York
Wang AH, Chen MT (2000) Effects of polarity and luminance contrast on visual performance and VDT display quality. Int J Ind Ergon 25(4):415–421
Wu HC (2011) Electronic paper display preferred viewing distance and character size for different age groups. Ergonomics 54(9):806–814
Wu HC (2012) Visual fatigue and performances for the 40-min. mixed visual work with a projected screen. Ergon Open J 5:10–18
Wu TS, Dameff CJ, Tully JL (2014) Ultrasound-guided central venous access using Google Glass. J Emerg Med 47(6):668–675
Wu HC, Chiu MC, Peng CW (2016) Visual fatigue occurrence time when using hand-held intelligent devices. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 7(6):829–835
Zhang Y, Rau PLP (2015) Playing with multiple wearable devices: exploring the influence of display, motion and gender. Comput Hum Behav 50:148–158
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hsiao, CY., Wang, MJ., Lu, YT. et al. Usability evaluation of monocular optical head-mounted displays on reading tasks. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 14, 14551–14560 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-1045-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-1045-3