UNASSIGNED: Currently, there is a paucity of guidelines relating to displays used for digital pathology making procurement decisions, and optimal display configuration, challenging.Experience suggests pathologists have personal preferences for brightness when using a conventional microscope which we hypothesized could be used as a predictor for display setup.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted an online survey across six NHS hospitals, totalling 108 practicing pathologists, to capture brightness adjustment habits on both microscopes and displays.A convenience subsample of respondents was then invited to take part in a practical task to determine microscope brightness and display luminance preferences in the normal working environment. A novel adaptation for a lightmeter was developed to directly measure the light output from the microscope eyepiece.
UNASSIGNED: The survey (response rate 59% n=64) indicates 81% of respondents adjust the brightness on their microscope. In comparison, only 11% report adjusting their digital display. Display adjustments were more likely to be for visual comfort and ambient light compensation rather than for tissue factors, common for microscope adjustments. Part of this discrepancy relates to lack of knowledge of how to adjust displays and lack of guidance on whether this is safe; But, 66% felt that the ability to adjust the light on the display was important.Twenty consultants took part in the practical brightness assessment. Light preferences on the microscope showed no correlation with display preferences, except where a pathologist has a markedly brighter microscope light preference. All of the preferences in this cohort were for a display luminance of <500 cd/m2, with 90% preferring 350 cd/m2 or less. There was no correlation between these preferences and the ambient lighting in the room.
UNASSIGNED: We conclude that microscope preferences can only be used to predict display luminance requirements where the microscope is being used at very high brightness levels. A display capable of a brightness of 500 cd/m2 should be suitable for almost all pathologists with 300 cd/m2 suitable for the majority. Although display luminance is not frequently changed by users, the ability to do so was felt to be important by the majority of respondents.Further work needs to be undertaken to establish the relationship between diagnostic performance, luminance preferences, and ambient lighting levels.

New type desktop head-up display (HUD) can reduce visual fatigue and protect vision through long viewing distance. In this study, participants evaluated visual performance, fatigue, and discomfort of desktop HUD under two contrast polarity (N = 36) and five display luminance levels (N = 21). A positive polarity advantage was found over negative in visual fatigue and discomfort (p < .05). Statistically significant effect of luminance was found on visual performance, fatigue, and discomfort (p < .05). The calculated optimum display luminance by the proposed inverted-U fitted model was 153 cd/m2 under 300 lx, higher than that of traditional desktop displays. It is speculated that higher luminance is required to offset the reduction in contrast sensitivity due to smaller target angular size, which caused by longer viewing distance. These findings suggest that positive polarity and 153 cd/m2 can be used to improve performance and avoid fatigue and discomfort when utilising desktop HUD under 300 lx.
A visual ergonomic study was conducted on new type desktop HUD. With visual performance, fatigue, and discomfort as optimisation goals, positive polarity and 153 cd/m2 was recommended under 300 lx. Compared with traditional desktop displays, higher luminance was required in desktop HUD under the same illumination.