Simone Benedetto

Dr. Simone Benedetto

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
27 December 2013 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SBSimone Benedetto
Simone Benedetto
VDVéronique Drai-Zerbib
Véronique Drai-Zerbib
MPMarco Pedrotti
Marco Pedrotti
GTGeoffrey Tissier
Geoffrey Tissier
Thierry BaccinoThierry Baccino
Thierry Baccino
The mass digitization of books is changing the way information is created, disseminated and displayed. Electronic book readers (e-readers) generally refer to two main display technologies: the electronic ink (E-ink) and the liquid crystal display (LCD). Both technologies have advantages and disadvantages, but the question whether one or the other triggers less visual fatigue is still open. The aim of the present research was to study the effects of the display technology on visual fatigue. To this end, participants performed a longitudinal study in which two last generation e-readers (LCD, E-ink) and paper book were tested in three different prolonged reading sessions separated by - on average - ten days. Results from both objective (Blinks per second) and subjective (Visual Fatigue Scale) measures suggested that reading on the LCD (Kindle Fire HD) triggers higher visual fatigue with respect to both the E-ink (Kindle Paperwhite) and the paper book. The absence of differences between E-ink and paper suggests that, concerning visual fatigue, the E-ink is indeed very similar to the paper.

28 February 2018 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SBSimone Benedetto
Simone Benedetto
CCChristian Caldato
Christian Caldato
EBElia Bazzan
Elia Bazzan
DGDarren Greenwood
Darren Greenwood
VPVirginia Pensabene
Virginia Pensabene
PAPaolo Actis
Paolo Actis
Fitness trackers are devices or applications for monitoring and tracking fitness-related metrics such as distance walked or run, calorie consumption, quality of sleep and heart rate. Since accurate heart rate monitoring is essential in fitness training, the objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and precision of the Fitbit Charge 2 for measuring heart rate with respect to a gold standard electrocardiograph. Fifteen healthy participants were asked to ride a stationary bike for 10 minutes and their heart rate was simultaneously recorded from each device. Results showed that the Fitbit Charge 2 underestimates the heart rate. Although the mean bias in measuring heart rate was a modest -5.9 bpm (95% CI: -6.1 to -5.6 bpm), the limits of agreement, which indicate the precision of individual measurements, between the Fitbit Charge 2 and criterion measure were wide (+16.8 to -28.5 bpm) indicating that an individual heart rate measure could plausibly be underestimated by almost 30 bpm.

22 November 2019 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SBSimone Benedetto
Simone Benedetto
CCChristian Caldato
Christian Caldato
DGDarren Greenwood
Darren Greenwood
NBNicola Bartoli
Nicola Bartoli
VPVirginia Pensabene
Virginia Pensabene
PAPaolo Actis
Paolo Actis
Remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) allows contactless monitoring of human cardiac activity through a video camera. In this study, we assessed the accuracy and precision for heart rate measurements of the only consumer product available on the market, namely the FacereaderTM rPPG by Noldus, with respect to a gold standard electrocardiograph. Twenty-four healthy participants were asked to sit in front of a computer screen and alternate two periods of rest with two stress tests (i.e. Go/No-Go task), while their heart rate was simultaneously acquired for 20 minutes using the ECG criterion measure and the FacereaderTM rPPG. Results show that the FacereaderTM rPPG tends to overestimate lower heart rates and underestimate higher heart rates compared to the ECG. The Facereader™ rPPG revealed a mean bias of 9.8 bpm, the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) ranged from almost -30 up to +50 bpm. These results suggest that whilst the rPPG FacereaderTM technology has potential for contactless heart rate monitoring, its predictions are inaccurate for higher heart rates, with unacceptable precision across the entire range, rendering its estimates unreliable for monitoring individuals.