Differences in Contrast Reproduction between Electronic Devices for Visual Assessment: Clinical Implications
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10045/117891
Title: | Differences in Contrast Reproduction between Electronic Devices for Visual Assessment: Clinical Implications |
---|---|
Authors: | Molina-Martín, Ainhoa | Piñero, David P. | Coco-Martin, María Begoña | Leal-Vega, Luis | Fez Saiz, Dolores de |
Research Group/s: | Grupo de Óptica y Percepción Visual (GOPV) |
Center, Department or Service: | Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Óptica, Farmacología y Anatomía |
Keywords: | Contrast sensitivity | Luminance reproduction | Luminance characterization | Display | Tablet | Electronic device |
Knowledge Area: | Óptica |
Issue Date: | 15-Sep-2021 |
Publisher: | MDPI |
Citation: | Molina-Martín A, Piñero DP, Coco-Martín MB, Leal-Vega L, de Fez D. Differences in Contrast Reproduction between Electronic Devices for Visual Assessment: Clinical Implications. Technologies. 2021; 9(3):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9030068 |
Abstract: | The easy access to electronic devices for users has resulted in the development of a vast range of programs and applications for visual evaluation and diagnosis that can be downloaded to any device. Some of them are based on tasks and stimuli that depend on luminance. The aim of the present study was to evaluate differences in luminance reproduction between electronic devices and their implications for contrast reproduction. A total of 20 Galaxy Tab A devices with 8-bit graphics processing units were evaluated. Characterization of every screen was performed obtaining the response curve for the achromatic stimulus. Mean, maximum and minimum luminance, standard deviation and coefficient of variation were obtained to assess differences between devices. Variation of luminance with increasing digital level was observed in all devices following a gamma distribution. Comparison between devices for mean results showed that some of them differed by as much as 45 cd/m2. The coefficient of variation varied from ~5 to 9%. Mean percentage of differences in luminance between devices reached 30%. In conclusion, differences in luminance reproduction between devices were present, even considering devices from the same manufacturing batch. It cannot be assumed that the characterization of one device can be extrapolated to other devices. Every device used for research purposes should be individually characterized to ensure the correct reproduction. For clinical purposes, limitations should be considered by visual specialists. |
Sponsor: | The author David P. Piñero has been supported by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of Spain within the program Ramón y Cajal, RYC-2016-20471. The study was developed with the support of the project OPTiTRAIN (IDI-20180123), co-financed by Centre for Industrial Technological Development (CDTI) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10045/117891 |
ISSN: | 2227-7080 |
DOI: | 10.3390/technologies9030068 |
Language: | eng |
Type: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
Rights: | © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
Peer Review: | si |
Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9030068 |
Appears in Collections: | INV - GOPV - Artículos de Revistas |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | 3,4 MB | Adobe PDF | Open Preview | |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License