ArticleCureus2026
Effect of Computer Screen Background Hues on Attention, Memory, and Visual Task Performance in Medical Students: A Repeated Measures Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundDigital screen characteristics may influence visual comfort, circadian physiology, and cognitive performance. Although blue-enriched light has been extensively studied, less is known about whether the background hue of a computer screen affects short-duration cognitive task performance. This study compared balanced white, red-predominant, and blue-predominant computer-screen conditions with printed white paper in medical students.
methodsThirty medical students completed four testing sessions one week apart in a repeated-measures design. The visual conditions were balanced white, red-predominant, and blue-predominant computer-screen hues, and printed white paper. Cognitive performance was assessed using an author-developed PQBD letter-identification task, a picture-difference task, comprehension-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Differences across conditions were analyzed using the Friedman test, with Wilcoxon signed-rank post-hoc comparisons and Holm correction. Kendall's W was reported as an effect-size measure.
resultsPaper was associated with the highest performance on several tasks, while the red screen condition performed better than the balanced white screen on selected attention and recall outcomes. PQBD performance differed significantly across conditions (Friedman χ²(3) = 37.08, p < 0.001; Kendall's W = 0.412). Mean correct-response percentages were 71.40 ± 17.31% for white screen, 81.26 ± 10.35% for red screen, 80.63 ± 9.51% for blue screen, and 89.92 ± 11.54% for paper. Picture-difference performance also differed significantly (χ²(3) = 26.15, p < 0.001; W = 0.291), as did comprehension-based MCQ performance (χ²(3) = 52.03, p < 0.001; W = 0.578).
conclusionShort-duration cognitive task performance differed across visual conditions in this exploratory repeated-measures study. Printed paper showed the highest performance on several tasks, while red-predominant screen hue was associated with better performance than balanced white on selected outcomes. Because the study used a small sample, fixed condition order, exploratory cognitive measures, and software-based rather than spectroradiometrically calibrated display settings, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. It appears that background hues of computer screens can affect task performance involving memory and concentration capabilities of medical students. Paper should be preferred in tasks requiring cognitive function, including memory and attention.
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.