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.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia threatens cognitive function and driving safety. Previous research investigated in-vehicle voice assistants as hypoglycemia warnings. However, they could startle drivers. To address this, we combine voice warnings with ambient LEDs.
OBJECTIVE: The study assesses the effect of in-vehicle multimodal warning on emotional reaction and technology acceptance among drivers with type 1 diabetes.
METHODS: Two studies were conducted, one in simulated driving and the other in real-world driving. A quasi-experimental design included 2 independent variables (blood glucose phase and warning modality) and 1 main dependent variable (emotional reaction). Blood glucose was manipulated via intravenous catheters, and warning modality was manipulated by combining a tablet voice warning app and LEDs. Emotional reaction was measured physiologically via skin conductance response and subjectively with the Affective Slider and tested with a mixed-effect linear model. Secondary outcomes included self-reported technology acceptance. Participants were recruited from Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
RESULTS: The simulated and real-world driving studies involved 9 and 10 participants with type 1 diabetes, respectively. Both studies showed significant results in self-reported emotional reactions (P<.001). In simulated driving, neither warning modality nor blood glucose phase significantly affected self-reported arousal, but in real-world driving, both did (F2,68=4.3; P<.05 and F2,76=4.1; P=.03). Warning modality affected self-reported valence in simulated driving (F2,68=3.9; P<.05), while blood glucose phase affected it in real-world driving (F2,76=9.3; P<.001). Skin conductance response did not yield significant results neither in the simulated driving study (modality: F2,68=2.46; P=.09, blood glucose phase: F2,68=0.3; P=.74), nor in the real-world driving study (modality: F2,76=0.8; P=.47, blood glucose phase: F2,76=0.7; P=.5). In both simulated and real-world driving studies, the voice+LED warning modality was the most effective (simulated: mean 3.38, SD 1.06 and real-world: mean 3.5, SD 0.71) and urgent (simulated: mean 3.12, SD 0.64 and real-world: mean 3.6, SD 0.52). Annoyance varied across settings. The standard warning modality was the least effective (simulated: mean 2.25, SD 1.16 and real-world: mean 3.3, SD 1.06) and urgent (simulated: mean 1.88, SD 1.55 and real-world: mean 2.6, SD 1.26) and the most annoying (simulated: mean 2.25, SD 1.16 and real-world: mean 1.7, SD 0.95). In terms of preference, the voice warning modality outperformed the standard warning modality. In simulated driving, the voice+LED warning modality (mean rank 1.5, SD rank 0.82) was preferred over the voice (mean rank 2.2, SD rank 0.6) and standard (mean rank 2.4, SD rank 0.81) warning modalities, while in real-world driving, the voice+LED and voice warning modalities were equally preferred (mean rank 1.8, SD rank 0.79) to the standard warning modality (mean rank 2.4, SD rank 0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the mixed results, this paper highlights the potential of implementing voice assistant-based health warnings in cars and advocates for multimodal alerts to enhance hypoglycemia management while driving.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05183191; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05183191, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05308095; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05308095.

Monitor specification and viewing conditions are important factors affecting image assessment in mammography. This survey evaluates the different viewing conditions and monitor specifications that exist in acquisition and reporting rooms in UK breast screening units.
Static (n = 10) and mobile (n = 2) breast screening units were evaluated in North West England. Room illumination levels were measured in 3 locations for each room using a calibrated Lux meter and the specification of 122 monitors recorded. Room layout, wall colour, location and number of doors, windows and light sources were recorded.
In reporting rooms, 90/91 of monitors had similar technical specifications and were compliant to guidelines. The ambient light levels ranged from 10 to 25.8 lux. The mean illuminance was 12.32 ± 4.6 lux. In acquisition rooms, great variances appeared in monitor specification and ambient light levels. The majority of monitors (24/34) had 3 megapixel (MB) optimum resolution but the ambient light level ranged from 10 to 1020 lux. The mean illuminance was 105.3 ± 178.8 lux. The mobile units were consistent with each other and compliant with guidelines.
A lack of consistency and great variances appeared in terms of ambient light levels and monitor specifications in the image acquisition rooms. However, there was excellent consistency among the illumination measurements and the monitors\' technical specifications in the reporting rooms.
This research demonstrates, for the first time, the need for further research and specialised guidelines for acquisition rooms.

Studies in chickens suggest low intensity ambient lighting causes myopia. The purpose of this experiment was to examine the effects of low intensity ambient lighting (dim light) on normal refractive development in macaque monkeys. Seven infant rhesus monkeys were reared under dim light (room illumination level: ~55 lx) from 24 to ~310 days of age with otherwise unrestricted vision. Refractive error, corneal power, ocular axial dimensions, and choroidal thickness were measured in anesthetized animals at the onset of the experiment and periodically throughout the dim-light-rearing period, and were compared with those of normal-light-reared monkeys. We found that dim light did not produce myopia; instead, dim-light monkeys were hyperopic relative to normal-light monkeys (median refractive errors at ~155 days, OD: +3.13 D vs. +2.31 D; OS: +3.31D vs. +2.44 D; at ~310 days, OD: +2.75D vs. +1.78D, OS: +3.00D vs. +1.75D). In addition, dim-light rearing caused sustained thickening in the choroid, but it did not alter corneal power development, nor did it change the axial nature of the refractive errors. These results showed that, for rhesus monkeys and possibly other primates, low ambient lighting by itself is not necessarily myopiagenic, but might compromise the efficiency of emmetropization.

Conventional approaches to improve the quality of clinical patient imaging studies focus predominantly on updating or replacing imaging equipment; however, it is often not considered that patients can also highly influence the diagnostic quality of clinical imaging studies. Patient-specific artifacts can limit the diagnostic image quality, especially when patients are uncomfortable, anxious, or agitated. Imaging facility or environmental conditions can also influence the patient\'s comfort and willingness to participate in diagnostic imaging studies, especially when performed in visually unesthetic, anxiety-inducing, and technology-intensive imaging centers. When given the opportunity to change a single aspect of the environmental or imaging facility experience, patients feel much more in control of the otherwise unfamiliar and uncomfortable setting. Incorporating commercial, easily adaptable, ambient lighting products within clinical imaging environments allows patients to individually customize their environment for a more personalized and comfortable experience.
The aim of this pilot study was to use a customizable colored light-emitting diode (LED) lighting system within a clinical imaging environment and demonstrate the feasibility and initial findings of enabling healthy subjects to customize the ambient lighting and color. Improving the patient experience within clinical imaging environments with patient-preferred ambient lighting and color may improve overall patient comfort, compliance, and participation in the imaging study and indirectly contribute to improving diagnostic image quality.
We installed consumer-based internet protocol addressable LED lights using the ZigBee standard in different imaging rooms within a clinical imaging environment. We recruited healthy volunteers (n=35) to generate pilot data in order to develop a subsequent clinical trial. The visual perception assessment procedure utilized questionnaires with preprogrammed light/color settings and further assessed how subjects preferred ambient light and color within a clinical imaging setting.
Technical implementation using programmable LED lights was performed without any hardware or electrical modifications to the existing clinical imaging environment. Subject testing revealed substantial variabilities in color perception; however, clear trends in subject color preference were noted. In terms of the color hue of the imaging environment, 43% (15/35) found blue and 31% (11/35) found yellow to be the most relaxing. Conversely, 69% (24/35) found red, 17% (6/35) found yellow, and 11% (4/35) found green to be the least relaxing.
With the majority of subjects indicating that colored lighting within a clinical imaging environment would contribute to an improved patient experience, we predict that enabling patients to customize environmental factors like lighting and color to individual preferences will improve patient comfort and patient satisfaction. Improved patient comfort in clinical imaging environments may also help to minimize patient-specific imaging artifacts that can otherwise limit diagnostic image quality.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03456895; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03456895.

The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the current status of recommended monitor specifications and viewing conditions in mammography for image acquisition and reporting rooms. A literature search was completed between August 2018 and March 2019 using ScienceDirect, PubMed, Web of Science and MEDLINE databases. An additional manual search was performed to identify relevant guidelines to support the review. Only articles and guidelines written in English were included.
Results were selected according to the following criteria; articles detailing (i) monitor specification and, (ii) viewing conditions in mammography acquisition and reporting rooms. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Six papers described monitor specifications, five described viewing conditions and ten guideline documents were identified from the UK, Europe and the US. Common outcomes were that monitors with 3 or 5 MP resolution seemed to be preferred and at the same time higher illumination levels (>15 lux) were found to decrease the luminance of the monitors and negatively impact the assessment of image quality. Contrary to this, the majority of guideline documents recommended illumination levels above 20 Lux. Finally, there is a lack of guidance for viewing conditions in acquisition rooms.
This review did not reveal any strong evidence for the proposed room illumination levels in acquisition rooms. In reference to monitors specifications, there is preference for using higher resolution displays (3 and 5 MP) but again, the evidence is not strong. Moreover, variance exists in the guidelines and that promotes inconsistency in mammography departments.
This review highlights the lack of standardised guidelines and the need for further research on the viewing conditions and monitor specifications for the acquisition rooms in mammography.

It has been suggested that much like commercial environments (e.g., retailing), the situational characteristics of gambling environments form an important determinant of gambling behavior. However, no research has examined whether ambient lighting in gaming venues can have unintended consequences in terms of gambling behavior. The results of three experimental laboratory studies show that game play duration and total spend increase when ambient lighting is dim (vs. bright). Process evidence suggests that this phenomenon occurs as ambient lighting influences risk-taking, which in turn increases game play duration and total spend. Further, evidence is provided that the effect of dim (vs. bright) ambient lighting reduces risk-taking and subsequent game play duration and total spend when an individual\'s self-awareness is facilitated (i.e., screening between gaming machines is removed). This research has implications in terms of public policy regarding the determination of minimum lighting levels in venues as a means to decrease gambling-related harm. Moreover, while gaming venues can use these insights and their ambient lighting switches to nudge individuals toward reducing their game play duration and total spend, gambling-afflicted consumers can opt for gambling venues with bright ambient lighting and those without screened gaming machines.

This work concerns the subjective impression of perceived illumination. The purpose of the study is to test attributes expressing qualitative experiences referring to ambient lighting that can be applied as descriptors. Seventy participants viewed an actual model room, with the fourth wall removed (viewing booth). Walls, floor, and ceiling were achromatic. Two achromatic cubes were placed inside the room: One was a reflectance increment to the walls, the other a decrement. The room was illuminated by two different light sources, Artificial Daylight (D65) or Tungsten Filament (F), the order of which was randomized across participants. The participants\' task was to evaluate ambient illumination for each light source. A semantic differential method was employed with 27 pairs of adjectives on 1 to 7 rating scales, categorized in three groups: characteristics of atmosphere, time, and cross-modal. Only the ratings of nine pairs of adjectives were not influenced by the type of illumination. The most differentiated couples under different illuminants were hot/cold and modern/old, but large differences also appeared with the following couples: hard/soft, technological/primitive, summery/wintry, warm/cool, sensual/frigid, natural/artificial, and hospitable/inhospitable. The hypothesis that there would be consistency among the subjects in evaluations of the characteristics tested and that these would be differently perceived under different illuminants was confirmed. The results show that it is possible to identify subjective perceived illumination as a phenomenon endowed with specific filling-in qualities and that as a perceptual experience it can be categorized, with implications for application in architecture and design.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of narrow band, long-wavelength lighting on normal refractive development and the phenomena of lens compensation and form-deprivation myopia (FDM) in infant rhesus monkeys. Starting at 24 and continuing until 151 days of age, 27 infant rhesus monkeys were reared under long-wavelength LED lighting (630 nm; illuminance = 274 ± 64 lux) with unrestricted vision (Red Light (RL) controls, n = 7) or a +3 D (+3D-RL, n = 7), -3 D (-3D-RL, n = 6) or diffuser lens (From Deprivation (FD-RL), n = 7) in front of one eye and a plano lens in front of the fellow eye. Refractive development, corneal power, and vitreous chamber depth were measured by retinoscopy, keratometry, and ultrasonography, respectively. Comparison data were obtained from normal monkeys (Normal Light (NL) controls, n = 39) and lens- (+3D-NL, n = 9; -3D-NL, n = 18) and diffuser-reared controls (FD-NL, n = 16) housed under white fluorescent lighting. At the end of the treatment period, median refractive errors for both eyes of all RL groups were significantly more hyperopic than that for NL groups (P = 0.0001 to 0.016). In contrast to fluorescent lighting, red ambient lighting greatly reduced the likelihood that infant monkeys would develop either FDM or compensating myopia in response to imposed hyperopic defocus. However, as in the +3D-NL monkeys, the treated eyes of the +3D-RL monkeys exhibited relative hyperopic shifts resulting in significant anisometropias that compensated for the monocular lens-imposed defocus (P = 0.001). The red-light-induced alterations in refractive development were associated with reduced vitreous chamber elongation and increases in choroidal thickness. The results suggest that chromatic cues play a role in vision-dependent emmetropization in primates. Narrow-band, long-wavelength lighting prevents the axial elongation typically produced by either form deprivation or hyperopic defocus, possibly by creating direction signals normally associated with myopic defocus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential confounding effects of four different types of ambient lighting on the results of Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) of a standardized cutaneous injury model.
METHODS: After applying a mechanical stimulus to the anterior forearm of a healthy volunteer and inducing a wheal and arteriolar flare (the Triple response), we used a Laser Doppler Line Scanner (LDLS) to image the forearm under four different types of ambient lighting: light-emitting-diode (LED), compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), halogen, daylight, and darkness as a control. A spectrometer was used to measure the intensity of light energy at 785 nm, the wavelength used by the scanner for measurement under each type of ambient lighting.
RESULTS: Neither the LED nor CFL bulbs emitted detectable light energy at a wavelength of 785 nm. The color-based representation of arbitrary perfusion unit (APU) values of the Triple response measured by the scanner was similar between darkness, LED, and CFL light. Daylight emitted 2 mW at 785 nm, with a slight variation tending more towards lower APU values compared to darkness. Halogen lighting emitted 6 mW of light energy at 785 nm rendering the color-based representation impossible to interpret.
CONCLUSIONS: Halogen lighting and daylight have the potential to confound results of LDI of cutaneous injuries whereas LED and CFL lighting did not. Any potential sources of daylight should be reduced and halogen lighting completely covered or turned off prior to wound imaging.