Visual Performance With Small Concave and Convex Displays

Objective: In this study, we aim to investigate how users’ visual performance with a small flexible display changes based on the direction (i.e., convex, concave) and the magnitude (i.e., low, high) of the display curvature. Background: Despite the wide interest in flexible display materials and deformable displays, the potential effects of nonplanar display surfaces on human perception and performance have received little attention. This study is the first to demonstrate how curving affects visual performance with an actual flexible display (4.5-in. active-matrix organic light-emitting diode). Method: In a series of three experiments, we compared the performance with a planar display to the performance with concave and convex display surfaces with low and high curvature magnitudes. Two visual search tasks were employed that required the subject to detect target letters based on their contrast (Experiments 1 and 2) and identity (Experiment 3). Performance was measured as the sensitivity of target detection (d′) and threshold time of the search, respectively. Results: There were similar sensitivities for targets across the curvature variants, but the high-magnitude curvatures resulted in prolonged search times, especially for the convex form. In both of the tasks, performance was dependent on the display location, which was defined as the target’s distance from the display center. Conclusion: High curvature magnitudes should be avoided, even in small displays, because large local changes in visual stimuli decrease processing speed outside the central display. Application: The findings have implications for the development of technologies, applications, and user interfaces for flexible displays and the design of visual display devices.

[1]  HolmanDavid,et al.  Organic user interfaces , 2008 .

[2]  An-Hsiang Wang,et al.  Effects of bending curvature and text/background color-combinations of e-paper on subjects' visual performance and subjective preferences under various ambient illuminance conditions , 2007, Displays.

[3]  Jürgen Steimle,et al.  FoldMe: interacting with double-sided foldable displays , 2012, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[4]  Jukka Häkkinen,et al.  P‐38: Flexible Displays: Cognitive Performance Studies , 2008 .

[5]  Bin Wang,et al.  Depth-of-focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications. , 2006, Survey of ophthalmology.

[6]  Jan O. Borchers,et al.  Twend: twisting and bending as new interaction gesture in mobile devices , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[7]  James S. Wolffsohn,et al.  Target spatial frequency determines the response to conflicting defocus- and convergence-driven accommodative stimuli , 2006, Vision Research.

[8]  J. Rovamo,et al.  Cortical magnification factor predicts the photopic contrast sensitivity of peripheral vision , 1978, Nature.

[9]  D. Foster,et al.  Bootstrap estimates of the statistical accuracy of thresholds obtained from psychometric functions. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[10]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[11]  G. Westheimer,et al.  Disjunctive eye movements , 1961, The Journal of physiology.

[12]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Multilevel Analysis , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[13]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Accommodative lag and fluctuations when optical aberrations are manipulated. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[14]  C. Scialfa,et al.  Response times and eye movements in feature and conjunction search as a function of target eccentricity , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  Roel Vertegaal,et al.  BendFlip: Examining Input Techniques for Electronic Book Readers with Flexible Form Factors , 2011, INTERACT.

[16]  H Wallach,et al.  Shape constancy in pictorial representation , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  Clifton M. Schor,et al.  Short-term adaptation of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence facility , 2012, Vision Research.

[18]  N. Thejo Kalyani,et al.  Organic light emitting diodes: Energy saving lighting technology—A review , 2012 .

[19]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  THE DESIGN OF A NEW LETTER CHART FOR MEASURING CONTRAST SENSITIVITY , 1988 .

[20]  Xu Jia,et al.  How users manipulate deformable displays as input devices , 2010, CHI.

[21]  Sheue-Ling Hwang,et al.  Ergonomic evaluation of electronic paper: Influences of anti-reflection surface treatment, illumination, and curvature on legibility and visual fatigue , 2008 .

[22]  R. R. Rosinski,et al.  Picture perception: An analysis of visual compensation , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  M. Cannon,et al.  Perceived contrast in the fovea and periphery. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[24]  Chunliang Lin,et al.  High-contrast top-emitting organic light-emitting devices for active-matrix displays , 2005 .

[25]  Risto Näsänen,et al.  Effect of image contrast and sharpness on visual search for computer icons , 2003 .

[26]  E F FINCHAM,et al.  The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence , 1957, The Journal of physiology.

[27]  Marja Salmimaa,et al.  Reading experience with curved hand‐held displays , 2008 .

[28]  Campbell Fw A method for measuring the depth of field of the human eye. , 1954 .

[29]  H. Pashler,et al.  Editorial board , 2004, Vision Research.

[30]  Kong-King Shieh,et al.  Effect of character size and lighting on legibility of electronic papers , 2008, Displays.

[31]  Clément Pillias,et al.  Reading with a digital roll , 2013, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[32]  M. Goulding,et al.  Erratum: Lbx1 and Tlx3 are opposing switches in determining GABAergic versus glutamatergic transmitter phenotypes , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[33]  Hideko F. Norman,et al.  Visual discrimination of local surface structure: Slant, tilt, and curvedness , 2006, Vision Research.

[34]  Susanna Paasovaara,et al.  Kinetic device: designing interactions with a deformable mobile interface , 2012, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[35]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Text in 3D: some legibility results , 2000, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[36]  Roel Vertegaal,et al.  PaperPhone: understanding the use of bend gestures in mobile devices with flexible electronic paper displays , 2011, CHI.

[37]  James M. Brown,et al.  Luminance contrast and the visual span during visual target localization , 2013, Displays.

[38]  G. B. Wetherill,et al.  SEQUENTIAL ESTIMATION OF POINTS ON A PSYCHOMETRIC FUNCTION. , 1965, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[39]  BY F. W. CAMIPBELL,et al.  DYNAMICS OF ACCOMMODATION RESPONSES OF THE HUMAN EYE , 2006 .

[40]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  Gummi: a bendable computer , 2004, CHI '04.

[41]  Risto Näsänen,et al.  Effects of luminance and colour contrast on the search of information on display devices , 2003 .

[42]  Nikita Pashenkov,et al.  Emerging display technologies for organic user interfaces , 2008, CACM.

[43]  Deepak,et al.  Improving the contrast ratio of OLED displays: An analysis of various techniques , 2012 .

[44]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[45]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  The psychophysics of visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

[46]  H Stanislaw,et al.  Calculation of signal detection theory measures , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[47]  Jaj Jacques Roufs,et al.  Text quality metrics for visual display units:: I. Methodological aspects , 1997 .

[48]  K. Rayner The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[49]  Tovi Grossman,et al.  Exploring and reducing the effects of orientation on text readability in volumetric displays , 2007, CHI.

[50]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading—V. The role of contrast in normal vision , 1987, Vision Research.

[51]  Markus Löchtefeld,et al.  Morphees: toward high "shape resolution" in self-actuated flexible mobile devices , 2013, CHI.

[52]  Donald P. Greenberg,et al.  A comprehensive physical model for light reflection , 1991, SIGGRAPH.

[53]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[54]  D. Foster,et al.  Obituary: Keith Harrhy Ruddock, 1939-1996. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[55]  Jaj Jacques Roufs,et al.  Text quality metrics for visual display units : II. an experimental survey , 1997 .

[56]  Clifton M. Schor,et al.  The first and second order dynamics of accommodative convergence and disparity convergence , 2010, Vision Research.