ArticleHuman factors2026
Designing Novel Visual Physiologic Monitor Displays for Patient Care.
Article in Human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study compared how numeric and configural visual displays affect reaction time (RT), accuracy, and workload during a simulated patient monitoring task.BackgroundWe previously showed that a configural display that maps vital sign variables in a two-dimensional space reduced RT to emergency events compared with a numerical display.MethodThirty participants monitored simulated patient vital signs using concurrently presented numeric and configural displays, which varied in relative position (numeric or configural on the left or right) and eccentricity (distance from the screen center) across trials. Participant RT and accuracy in identifying abnormal vital signs were measured. Participants simultaneously performed a secondary task (N-Back) to simulate multitasking, with performance assessed through RT and accuracy. Workload was measured using both pupillometry and NASA-TLX self-reports.ResultsPrimary task RT and accuracy depended on emergency event. In the secondary task, positioning the configural display to the right of center and positioning close to center speeded task RT and improved accuracy. Secondary task accuracy was better at lower display eccentricity. Pupil dilation increased during emergency events, and NASA-TLX workload scores increased with greater eccentricity. NASA-TLX scores showed that participants found the task to be mentally demanding but not physically demanding.ConclusionDisplay configuration significantly affects primary and secondary task performance and NASA-TLX-measured workload. Right-positioned configural displays at low-eccentricity may better support multitasking in clinical environments.ApplicationThese findings highlight how spatial arrangement and eccentricity of displays influence multitasking performance and workload, informing interface designs that better support user efficiency under demanding conditions.
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.