自然和人工照明:对可读性的影响

Sílvia Espada, A. Teixeira, M. Antunes, Sónia Brito-Costa
{"title":"自然和人工照明:对可读性的影响","authors":"Sílvia Espada, A. Teixeira, M. Antunes, Sónia Brito-Costa","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1003538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the study we present, the effects of different types of light (natural or artificial), different types of texts (scientific and children's) and different reading formats (on screen and on paper) on our readability are addressed, as well as determining the preference of each participant for reading tasks and to what extent reading with natural light and with influences of artificial light affects their readability in design, and how the reading process could be done more effectively, through manipulation of lighting variables. The experiments were based on different tasks, which required 10 participants, to read two different texts (children's text and scientific text), in two different formats (print and screen) under two different types of lighting (natural light and artificial light). During reading, we recorded the following parameters: Heart rate and EEG signal (levels of calm, neutral and active (%) using two devices: a heart rate monitor to measure heart rate and Muse, a brain detection headband that uses real-time biofeedback in its brain activity, which we used to monitor brain activity. After completing the protocol, participants answered a questionnaire to collect data on their reading preferences and were composed of three parts: the first part consisted of questions aimed at collecting demographic information from the participants (age, nationality, and other useful data for our research); the second part addressed three questions about the participants reading preferences; the third part was designed to explore the participants opinions about the test and their comfortability. We conclude that participants prefer reading on paper rather than on screen and their performance was better in reading with artificial light. Although reading with natural light was the preference of most participants, reading with artificial light provides better performance in performing the tasks. These findings could help designers to better understand the roles of lighting variables in the reading process and to create light design products that are more efficient, sustainable, and comfortable.","PeriodicalId":308830,"journal":{"name":"Human Dynamics and Design for the Development of Contemporary Societies","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Natural and artificial lighting: Influence on readability\",\"authors\":\"Sílvia Espada, A. Teixeira, M. Antunes, Sónia Brito-Costa\",\"doi\":\"10.54941/ahfe1003538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the study we present, the effects of different types of light (natural or artificial), different types of texts (scientific and children's) and different reading formats (on screen and on paper) on our readability are addressed, as well as determining the preference of each participant for reading tasks and to what extent reading with natural light and with influences of artificial light affects their readability in design, and how the reading process could be done more effectively, through manipulation of lighting variables. The experiments were based on different tasks, which required 10 participants, to read two different texts (children's text and scientific text), in two different formats (print and screen) under two different types of lighting (natural light and artificial light). During reading, we recorded the following parameters: Heart rate and EEG signal (levels of calm, neutral and active (%) using two devices: a heart rate monitor to measure heart rate and Muse, a brain detection headband that uses real-time biofeedback in its brain activity, which we used to monitor brain activity. After completing the protocol, participants answered a questionnaire to collect data on their reading preferences and were composed of three parts: the first part consisted of questions aimed at collecting demographic information from the participants (age, nationality, and other useful data for our research); the second part addressed three questions about the participants reading preferences; the third part was designed to explore the participants opinions about the test and their comfortability. We conclude that participants prefer reading on paper rather than on screen and their performance was better in reading with artificial light. Although reading with natural light was the preference of most participants, reading with artificial light provides better performance in performing the tasks. These findings could help designers to better understand the roles of lighting variables in the reading process and to create light design products that are more efficient, sustainable, and comfortable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":308830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Dynamics and Design for the Development of Contemporary Societies\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Dynamics and Design for the Development of Contemporary Societies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1003538\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Dynamics and Design for the Development of Contemporary Societies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1003538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在我们提出的研究中,不同类型的光(自然或人工),不同类型的文本(科学和儿童)和不同的阅读格式(在屏幕上和在纸上)对我们的可读性的影响,以及确定每个参与者对阅读任务的偏好,以及在自然光线和人工光线的影响下阅读在多大程度上影响他们的可读性设计,以及如何更有效地完成阅读过程。通过操纵照明变量。实验基于不同的任务,要求10名参与者在两种不同类型的照明(自然光和人造光)下,以两种不同的格式(印刷和屏幕)阅读两种不同的文本(儿童文本和科学文本)。在阅读过程中,我们记录了以下参数:心率和脑电图信号(平静,中性和活跃水平(%)使用两个设备:心率监测器来测量心率和Muse,一个大脑检测头带,在其大脑活动中使用实时生物反馈,我们用来监测大脑活动。在完成方案后,参与者回答了一份问卷,以收集他们阅读偏好的数据,该问卷由三个部分组成:第一部分包括旨在收集参与者人口统计信息的问题(年龄、国籍和其他对我们的研究有用的数据);第二部分回答了三个关于参与者阅读偏好的问题;第三部分旨在探讨参与者对测试的看法和他们的舒适程度。我们得出的结论是,参与者更喜欢在纸上阅读而不是在屏幕上阅读,他们在人造光下的阅读表现更好。虽然在自然光下阅读是大多数参与者的偏好,但在人造光下阅读在执行任务时表现更好。这些发现可以帮助设计师更好地理解照明变量在阅读过程中的作用,并创造出更高效、可持续和舒适的照明设计产品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Natural and artificial lighting: Influence on readability
In the study we present, the effects of different types of light (natural or artificial), different types of texts (scientific and children's) and different reading formats (on screen and on paper) on our readability are addressed, as well as determining the preference of each participant for reading tasks and to what extent reading with natural light and with influences of artificial light affects their readability in design, and how the reading process could be done more effectively, through manipulation of lighting variables. The experiments were based on different tasks, which required 10 participants, to read two different texts (children's text and scientific text), in two different formats (print and screen) under two different types of lighting (natural light and artificial light). During reading, we recorded the following parameters: Heart rate and EEG signal (levels of calm, neutral and active (%) using two devices: a heart rate monitor to measure heart rate and Muse, a brain detection headband that uses real-time biofeedback in its brain activity, which we used to monitor brain activity. After completing the protocol, participants answered a questionnaire to collect data on their reading preferences and were composed of three parts: the first part consisted of questions aimed at collecting demographic information from the participants (age, nationality, and other useful data for our research); the second part addressed three questions about the participants reading preferences; the third part was designed to explore the participants opinions about the test and their comfortability. We conclude that participants prefer reading on paper rather than on screen and their performance was better in reading with artificial light. Although reading with natural light was the preference of most participants, reading with artificial light provides better performance in performing the tasks. These findings could help designers to better understand the roles of lighting variables in the reading process and to create light design products that are more efficient, sustainable, and comfortable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Slipper Palace. Creative Entrepreneurship for the Common Good [de]Territorialization, the Role of our Brain in a Technological World. Biomateriality Bridging Design and the Community Overcrowded Ecologies: Designing Value through More-than-Human Factors Cohort Study Good Practices: Design Communication and Capacitation Processes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1