Methodological study reveals high-frequency temporal light modulation hazards across digital displays, suggesting an objective optical framework to diagnose display-induced visual fatigue.
A persistent disconnect exists between display technology engineering, which optimizes for visual fidelity and power efficiency, and neuropsychology, which evaluates the human physiological response to optical stimuli. Modern Light-Emitting Diode (LED) and Organic LED (OLED) displays utilize complex, high-frequency temporal light modulation (TLM) that frequently induces visually induced asthenopia, photophobia, and autonomic stress in susceptible populations. However, legacy lighting metrics—which rely on distance-decaying illuminance models and arbitrarily cap hazard analysis at 30 kHz—systematically fail to quantify the luminance-driven, spatial-saccadic stressors emitted by active digital displays. This research proposes a fundamentally new, biologically grounded methodology for direct-luminance display metrology. Utilizing a custom-modified 300 kS/s sensor, this paper introduces a novel Phantom-array Display Visibility Measure (PDVM), scaling peripheral sensitivity via Piper’s Law and mathematically extending the physiological hazard ceiling to the 60 kHz foveal resolution limit. To quantify complex signal interference, a Rolling-Window Root-Sum-Square (RSS) Weighted TLM Percentage (WTLM%) is deployed, alongside Sub-Harmonic Envelope Demodulation and Time-Domain Convolution filtering to isolate Frame Rate Control (FRC) and DAC structural step-distortions. Empirical case studies across varied OLED and LCD architectures confirm that this dual-channel framework successfully detects neurologically provocative sub-harmonics masked by >19 kHz carriers and dynamically tracks hardware electrical stability across Voltage-Transmittance curves. Ultimately, this methodology provides the rigorous diagnostic precision required to translate subjective visual fatigue into objective, quantifiable optical biomarkers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tobias Jianwei (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: