An attempt was made to examine the development of the ability to identify stimuli presented to peripheral vision in several different tasks. Five-and 8-year-old children and college adults saw, for ·20 msec, either a single figure at 1 0 , 2 0 , 4 0 , or 6 0 of visual angle from the fovea (singleform condition) or an off-foveal figure with an additional figure at the fovea (double-form condition). In the double-form conditions, the subjects were required to identify either the peripheral figure only (double-form presentation) or both figures (double-form report). The main effects of Age, Distance, and Form Condition were significant. Accuracy improved with increasing age and with decreasing distance. The Form Condition effect reflected lower accuracy in the two double-form conditions than in the single-form condition. Interestingly, there was no difference between the two double-form conditions, suggesting that the mere presence of a foveal stimulus, with instructions to ignore it, produces as much decrement in peripheral performance as when subjects are told to fully process and report the foveal stimulus. Also, there was no interaction .between Form Condition and Distance, suggesting that the label "tunnel vision" may be misleading, since the presence of the foveal stimulus seems to have an equal effect on all peripheral locations and does not really "restrict" the size of the effective visual field.Visual events are perceived not only in the area of central, or foveal, vision, but in the area of peripheral vision as well. Some of these peripherally occurring events may be detected, fully processed, and identified by the observer without the necessity of eye movements. Other peripheral events may be detected and perhaps partially processed, but not completely identified. In these latter cases, the observer may move his eyes in order to place the The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance of the people involved in this research. We are grateful to Richard Hansen and the teachers at Eastridge Elementary School for their cooperation in providing children. Deborah Porter and Celeste Newman deserve special thanks for their assistance in data collection; Frank Slaymaker and Lynne Olsho provided invaluable suggestions and help in data analysis.
Membrane switch technology has become increasingly popular in many consumer-oriented products due to its low production cost and design flexibility. However, the absence of familiar key travel associated with membrane switches removes an important, direct source of feedback to the user with respect to specific keystrokes. Hence, the conventional wisdom has been that membrane switches without key travel are unacceptable for keyboard applications such as typing tasks. This paper describes systematic human factors research in which typing performance using a commercially available membrane keyboard and a conventional, full-travel keyboard was compared for subjects representing different levels of typing proficiency. Each subject (N = 21) used a membrane keyboard for 3 consecutive (or nearly consecutive) days and a conventional keyboard for 3 consecutive (or nearly consecutive) days. Each day of experience consisted of a one-hour session in which various typing exercises were completed. Traditional tests of typing performance were administered at the beginning and end of each session. The results indicate that for non-touch typists there was little difference in performance between keyboards. For touch typists performance with the conventional keyboard was initially much better than that with the membrane keyboard. There was, however, rapid learning with the membrane keyboard such that, within a few sessions, the difference in typing performance between the conventional and membrane keyboards was reduced substantially. There remained some advantage for the conventional keyboard, compared with the membrane keyboard evaluated here. Future work will be aimed at measurement of the additional improvement in performance resulting from extended practice with better-designed membrane keyboards.
Although chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have not yet been shown to be safe or effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19, regulatory agencies in some countries have authorised their use in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the lack of available interventions. Several large clinical trials are currently underway to investigate these agents as potential therapeutic options for COVID-19. Previous research against similar pathogens that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome has identified chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as possible antiviral candidates against SARS-CoV-2. Despite promising pre-clinical evidence, data have thus far failed to confirm their efficacy, and recent studies suggest potential dose-related cardiotoxicity and mortality. Close monitoring for cardiac conduction abnormalities is advised with higher-than-approved doses. Additional, robust evidence from randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses are required to make informed risk-benefit assessments. Finally, the off-label prescription of these agents should be judiciously considered, and any such use should be conducted within clinical trials, or under the Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered and Investigational Interventions framework.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.