Welcome and thank you for visiting Eye Science, the home of research based operator fatigue detection, measurement, assessment and mediative or preventative interventions.
Introduction by Project Director Nigel DuPree
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it wrongly and applying unsuitable remedies.”
Whilst we nod our heads sagely with a wry smile in agreement with Groucho and suck our teeth in annoyance at the increasing red tape foisted up us, in small part, it is also our fault for not being able to fulfil our duty of care to our employees.
Why? Simply because, for at least the last 21 years, of UK Government following EU Directives, too often, something has been sort of lost in translation or as, recently admitted by the good and true well meaning fellows in the labyrinth of corridors of the powers that be, these very reasonable or practicable EU Directives have been over egged, over complicated to make them appear a gold standard in regulations.
Unfortunately, in the case of EU Directive under article 16(1) 89/391/EECEN ISO th9241-4-9 - 90/270/EEC 29 May 1990 - Display Screen Equipment Directive the UK
sort of followed in the spirit of it but, missed the point in their version the DSE Regulation 1993, and sort of omitted, whether by design or ignorance, to focus attention on, clue is in the title, the DISPLAY SCREEN EQUIPMENT !
For some reason, except perhaps they had no real clue what to do about it, the display screen equipment itself, almost counter intuitively, has been dismissed as “causing little or no permanent damage” yet, in any „reasonably foreseeable‟ chain of causation leading to operator fatigue, screen fatigue, computer vision syndrome, social mythology, whateveeer DSE work continues to debilitate the performance / well-being for more that half of all operators / users by around an average of 20%
or 33 days lost productivity per operator per annum.
Rather puts absenteeism in the shade and even the HSE Better Display Screen (RR561 2007) review of past and current research recognises that there has been little or no improvement or any reduction in the 58% of operator / users subjectively reporting visual disruption, 52% eye and tension headaches, double vision etc. etc..
Then, of course, there are the 40 odd percent who have had little in the way of palliative, mediative or preventative intervention who go on to need remedial occupational therapy for WRULD‟s (work-related upper limb disorders) costing UK
employers some ?221 million, let alone, bad backs that according to HSE is estimated to cost a further ?315 to ?335 million per annum.
Little wonder that dotgov hasn‟t started recovering NHS costs from the employer yet as while there are many who will persevere some 760,000 employees per annum do take significant time off sick and will require more time to reintegrate into the workplace before fully fit and able to perform well or be as productive as their peers.
UK industry maybe perturbed by the prospect of inclusion of “Stress Assessments” as
part of any risk assessment associated with Manual Handling & DSE Directive coming into affect this April 2011 but, if there are not measurable reductions in MSD‟s you can bet it will be odds-on the EU will drive through a Muscularskeletal Disorders Directive linked to psychosocial factors like work related stress, pressure or demand.
Again HSE regards stress as a rather “subjective” and therefore a difficult subject to get a handle on, let alone, enforce although the symptoms, debilitating affects and lose in performance / productivity continue to plague the employers bottom-line without a reasonably practicable and simple “objective risk assessment tool-kit”.
The Screenrisk tool-kit, has been developed by Eye Science computer boffins as an “objective” non-invasive measurement, evaluation and assessment of individuals genuine levels of fatigue rather than solely an opportunity for employees to compete amongst themselves as to who is working the hardest or is stressed the most…..
As the employer is left with a roughly 50-50 chance whether subjectively reported Screen Fatigue is genuine or not our new screenrisk tool-kit will not only provide an opportunity to sort the wheat from the chaff but, comes with a screen based solution allowing operators to self-assess optimum, best or ideal personal screen settings.
In addition, should the operator still insist subjectively that they are still experiencing the affects of screen fatigue we have the ultimate arbitrator our detection and measurement equipment to objectively assess operator fatigue – no argument as,
just like a polygraph machine, our apparatus records minute physical and neurological reactions that we, as human beings, have NO control over.
It maybe too early to definitively announce the end of operator fatigue or Screen Fatigue specifically yet we believe we “probably”, for the first time, have the best yet solution to the screen fatigue, computer vision syndrome, MSD problem that has remained unresolved since the introduction of VDU‟s and Display Screen Equipment.
If in any doubt of our confidence we will also back up our claims by promising that quite simply:
“if, there is no measurable gain in performance then, there will be no pain”
as the results are logged we shall make an automatically refund to your account.
Have a looksee at
When workers heed computer's reminder to take a break, their productivity jumps, Cornell study finds
FOR RELEASE: Sept. 24, 1999
Contact: Susan S. Lang
Office: (607) 255-3613
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Workers who used computer software to remind them occasionally to assume good posture, take short breaks and occasionally stretch do more accurate work and as a result are more productive, according to a new Cornell University study.
"We found that alerting computer users to take short rests and breaks improved work accuracy without any reductions in overall keystroke and mouse use," says Alan Hedge, professor of design and environmental analysis at Cornell and director of Cornell's Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory. In his study, Hedge found that workers receiving the alerts were 13 percent more accurate on average in their work than co-workers who were not reminded. The more the workers typed, the better their accuracy: the fastest typist made almost 40 percent fewer errors than his counterpart who did not receive the computer alerts.
This improvement in work accuracy reflects an overall 1 percent jump in the workers' total productivity during the five-week test period, Hedge says. "That means the company will recoup its software investment in about three months and protect its workers from overuse injuries at the same time." Hedge conducted a 10-week study of 21 workers at the Wall Street office of New Century Global, which provides insurance for professional sports teams, including the New York Jets, as well as Broadway shows and other clients. The company was committed to improving office ergonomics. After five weeks of collecting baseline ergonomic data on employees, half the group was
randomly assigned to using off-the-shelf ergonomics risk management software that takes into account employee work levels, thresholds and task assignments, and presents on-screen alerts at appropriate times, reminding workers to assume good posture, take a microbreak and stretch. The software was designed to manage workflow and injury risks associated with keyboard and mouse overuse, Hedge said, but it turns out that the software also helps productivity. "Previous smaller studies of microbreaks have indicated the potential for productivity improvements by changing the way people use computers, but this is the first, truly extensive and real-world study that has accurately measured real productivity and shown benefits above and beyond overuse injury protection," says Hedge, who will present his findings to the National Ergonomics Conference and Exhibition, Dec. 6-9, in Anaheim, Calif.
Hedge measured some 4 million keystrokes during nearly 6,200 hours of computer use by a variety of participants who used their computers almost six hours a day. "The results are conclusive. People can measurably improve their computer productivity and substantially reduce their risk of repetitive stress injuries if they would simply work smarter," Hedge says. Hedge says that researchers know that people should not continuously work on computers because of muscle fatigue and increased injury risks. For these reasons, ergonomists have studied the effects of optimizing work flow, workload, work patterns and work posture on performance.
"Inappropriate work organization eventually has a deleterious effect upon work output and work quality, and workers in this situation run a greater risk of injury," says Hedge. "With the software paying for itself in three months and the potential reduction in injury risk associated with overuse of computers, there is now quite a compelling economic reason to use ergonomic risk management software to optimize workflow."
The study has been published as Cornell Human Factors Laboratory Technical Report RP9991.
Do you suffer from Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS)? Many people do, from spending long hours in front of computer screens and video display terminals. We invite you to answer these questions to help you discover whether prolonged computer use is affecting your vision as a result of Computer Vision Syndrome, an occupational condition recognized by the American Optometric Association.
If you suffer from any of these problems, you may be developing CVS.
; tired eyes
; sore eyes
; periodic blurred near vision
; occasional blurred distance vision
; dry eyes
; slowness in changing the focus of your eyes
; red eyes
; burning eyes
; contact lens discomfort
; changes in color perception
; glare sensitivity
; excessive tearing
; neck, shoulder and back pain
If you checked even one or two of these symptoms, and if your work or recreation involves prolonged used of computer monitors or video display terminals, you could be suffering from Computer Vision Syndrome.
3D pains in the offing, warns Eyecare Trust
By James Patterson
Twelve percent of the population in UK suffers from poor binocular vision, as a study recently found out. This population or viewers would therefore not be able to use the 3D technology that TV is going to offer due to this physical problem.
Eyecare Trust, the agency which had carried out this study and published its findings have warned of possible discouraging effect amongst this large percentage of people while trying to view 3D TV or playing games on 3DS
The chairman of the charity organization that carried out the study, Mr. Dharmesh Patel has also stated that this group of people along with the mental trauma of not being able to view the 3D effects would also experience
ill effect of headaches and aches behind the eye.
There was however a note of joy in the report when it states that the effects experienced would not be long term and would subside if the source or cause factor was removed. Just by stoppage of viewing the display the effects would vanish.
There is news about 3D technology coming up in a big way, be it in the movie halls or home viewing or pure entertainment in 3D games. Big wigs like Sky
TV and Sony have started moving in 3D direction and therefore a lot of this would be seen in the near future. As per Patel there is a huge population out there which have not been reviewed and are perhaps suffering from similar effects.
There are therefore some reasons to believe that there would be a lot many people complaining of vision problems given the rapid rate at which 3D technology is spreading its tentacles all over the world.