ArticleHeliyon2023
Head-mounted display versus computer monitor for visual attention screening: A comparative study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- REAsmash-ET: a methodological framework for combined cognitive and motor assessment through eye-tracking and kinematic metrics in immersive VR search-and-reach task.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Comparing Immersive and Non-Immersive VR: Effects on Spatial Learning and Aesthetic Experience in Museum Settings.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual attention is crucial to many tasks during working. When it is impaired, the risk of occupational accidents is increased. A potential accident prevention would be the tracking of employees' attentional states to construct break regimes. There is a promising visual attention test administered on a computer monitor (CM) that has several advantages over widely used continuous performance tests in detecting inattentiveness in occupational environments. However, as the setup with a CM is impractical for the use in particular working environments (e.g., lack of space or disturbing exposure to light), the test was implemented into a head-mounted display (HMD). This study aimed to investigate whether the HMD version of the test is a suitable alternative to the CM version. For this purpose, participants (N = 30; 20-29 y) performed both tests. The performance on the HMD was significantly lower than on the CM. Moreover, the performances were compared with normative data recorded with a CM in a previous study. These data significantly differ from the data recorded with the CM in the present study. This emphasizes the importance of a standardized test environment, which could be provided by an HMD. Conclusively, this study revealed that the new VR tool, based on a previous test designed to assess visual skills in a complex visual environment, exhibited good psychometric property regarding the reliability. In additional, no problems were revealed regarding the functionality and usability of the HMD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.