ArticleScientific reports2024
Eyestrains among smartphone users while watching videos in Taipei MRT carriages: a comparison between sitting and standing postures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Visually Induced Motion Sickness During Smartphone Use in Moving Metro Carriages: Effects of Posture and Viewing Duration-A Randomized Crossover Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Smartphone gaming while walking increases visual fatigue compared with standing.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In MRT carriages, more passengers are watching videos on their smartphones during daily commutes, yet the impact of these viewing conditions on visual strain remains unexplored. This study examined eyestrain in 24 male and 24 female participants while watching videos on smartphones in two postures (sitting and standing) and over two durations (15 min and 30 min) in Taipei MRT carriages. We measured critical flicker fusion frequency (CFF) reduction, visual fatigue scale (VFS) scores, and viewing distance (VD) for each trial. Results revealed significant effects of sex, posture, and viewing duration on visual strain, with notable two-way interactions (sex × posture and posture × time) influencing most outcomes. Women showed greater CFF reduction while sitting compared to standing (3.47 Hz vs. 1.90 Hz, p < 0.001) and maintained shorter VDs while seated (25.5 cm vs. 34.3 cm, p < 0.001). However, they reported higher VFS scores when standing (8.94 vs. 4.60, p < 0.001), indicating increased discomfort while standing in the moving MRT carriage. Men exhibited higher CFF reduction (2.81 Hz) than women while standing (1.90 Hz) (p < 0.01), but this difference was not observed while sitting. Eyestrain indicators significantly worsened after 30 min of viewing compared to 15 min, with stronger effects on VFS scores and VDs. This finding supports the recommendation to take breaks after 20 min of smartphone use, even in MRT carriages. Although subjective eyestrain is not always recognized, watching videos on smartphones while seated can result in unexpectedly high levels of objective visual fatigue, indicated by CFF reduction. Our findings suggest that eyestrain patterns in MRT carriages differ from those reported in previous studies. Seated passengers, particularly females with shorter VD, may experience unrecognized eyestrain that could impact eye health, while standing passengers may face greater discomfort. These results highlight the need for increased awareness and preventive measures to mitigate eyestrain in digital public transportation environments.
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.