Aier School of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Changsha Aier Eye Hospital, Aier Eye Hospital Group, Changsha, China.
Hunan Province Optometry Engineering and Technology Research Center, Changsha, China.
BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2023 Dec 28;8(1):e001409. doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001409.
To investigate how the mounting location of wearable devices affects the measurement of light intensity.
Two commercially available wearable devices, HOBO and Clouclip, were used to compare the effects of different mount locations on light intensity measurement. We assessed the consistency of the measurements of the two devices by placing a HOBO and a Clouclip simultaneously in 26 different light environments and measuring the light intensity. To simulate the real-life usage scenarios of the two devices, we had 29 participants wear two HOBOs-one on the wrist and the other on the chest-along with a Clouclip on their spectacles for 1 day; meanwhile, the light intensity was measured and analysed.
When under the same light environments, the light intensity measured by the Clouclip was 1.09 times higher than that by the HOBO, with an additional 82.62 units (r=1.00, p<0.001). When simulating the real-life scenarios, the mean light intensity at the eye-level position was significantly lower than that at the chest position (189.13±665.78 lux vs 490.75±1684.29 lux, p<0.001) and the wrist position (189.13±665.78 lux vs 483.87±1605.50 lux, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in light intensity between the wrist and chest positions (483.87±1605.50 lux vs 490.75±1684.29 lux, p=1.00). Using a threshold of 1000 lux for outdoor exposure, the estimated light exposure at the eye-level position was significantly lower than that at the chest position (3.9% vs 7.8%, χ=266.14, p<0.001) and the wrist position (3.9% vs 7.7%, χ=254.25, p<0.001).
Our findings revealed significant variations in light exposure among the wrist, chest and eye position. Therefore, caution must be exercised when comparing results obtained from different wearable devices.
探讨可穿戴设备的佩戴位置如何影响光强度测量。
使用两种市售的可穿戴设备(HOBO 和 Clouclip)比较不同佩戴位置对光强度测量的影响。我们将一个 HOBO 和一个 Clouclip 同时放置在 26 种不同的光环境中进行测量,并评估两种设备测量结果的一致性。为了模拟两种设备的实际使用场景,我们让 29 名参与者佩戴两个 HOBO(一个在手腕上,另一个在胸部),同时在眼镜上佩戴一个 Clouclip,持续 1 天,同时测量和分析光强度。
当处于相同的光环境下时,Clouclip 测量的光强度比 HOBO 高 1.09 倍,额外增加了 82.62 个单位(r=1.00,p<0.001)。在模拟实际场景时,眼部位置的平均光强度明显低于胸部位置(189.13±665.78 lux 比 490.75±1684.29 lux,p<0.001)和手腕位置(189.13±665.78 lux 比 483.87±1605.50 lux,p<0.001)。然而,手腕和胸部位置的光强度没有显著差异(483.87±1605.50 lux 比 490.75±1684.29 lux,p=1.00)。使用 1000 lux 的户外暴露阈值,眼部位置的估计光暴露量明显低于胸部位置(3.9%比 7.8%,χ=266.14,p<0.001)和手腕位置(3.9%比 7.7%,χ=254.25,p<0.001)。
我们的研究结果表明,在手腕、胸部和眼部位置之间,光暴露量存在显著差异。因此,在比较不同可穿戴设备的结果时,必须谨慎。