Supplementary Material - Supplemental material for The Ups and Downs of Camera-Monitor Systems: The Effect of Camera Position on Rearward Distance Perception

Supplemental material, Supplementary Material, for The Ups and Downs of Camera-Monitor Systems: The Effect of Camera Position on Rearward Distance Perception by Christoph Bernhard and Heiko Hecht in Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society</p

Wider is better but sharper is not: optimizing the image of camera-monitor systems

The replacement of rear-view mirrors with camera-monitor systems introduces new opportunities for design, such as altering the image quality and the rearward field-of-view. We investigated how the image quality and field-of-view might affect the distance and time-to-contact estimation of other vehicles. Eighty-six subjects estimated either their egocentric distance to a stationary vehicle (Experiment I) or the time-to-contact to an approaching vehicle (Experiment II). Throughout the experiments, the pixel density and either the field-of-view or the viewing condition varied. A larger field-of-view increased distance estimation accuracy and confidence. Reduced pixel density led to larger estimates. In contrast, reduced pixel density and simulated dirt shortened time-to-contact estimates. This is compatible with a safety strategy applied under conditions of impaired vision. Moreover, a limited benefit was observed for higher pixel densities. Therefore, camera-monitor systems with large field-of-view and a pixel density of around 300 ppi could ensure accurate TTC and distance estimation. Practitioner summary: A camera’s field-of-view and image quality are important parameters for camera-monitor systems. In two experiments, we investigated the effects of these two parameters on rearward distance and time-to-contact estimation. Whereas a larger field-of-view improved distance estimation accuracy, increasing the pixel density had a limited effect in the estimation of time-to-contact.</p

Both Poly(ethylene glycol) and Poly(methyl ethylene phosphate) Guide Oriented Adsorption of Specific Proteins

Developing new functional biomaterials requires the ability to simultaneously repel unwanted and guide wanted protein adsorption. Here, we systematically interrogate the factors determining the protein adsorption by comparing the behaviors of different polymeric surfaces, poly­(ethylene glycol) and a poly­(phosphoester), and five different natural proteins. Interestingly we observe that, at densities comparable to those used in nanocarrier functionalization, the same proteins are either adsorbed (fibrinogen, human serum albumin, and transferrin) or repelled (immunoglobulin G and lysozyme) by both polymers. However, when adsorption takes place, the specific surface dictates the amount and orientation of each protein