MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408845489 · doi:10.1080/00140139.2025.2483451

The dark side of the interface: examining the influence of different background modes on cognitive performance

2025· article· en· W4408845489 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMode (computer interface)CognitionGreat RiftPsychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPhysicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the pivotal role that dark mode plays in user interface design, its widespread adoption across various applications and operating systems is evident. This study aims to investigate the potential effects of different background modes (light and dark) using cognitive ability tests and collect demographic variables for analysis. A total of 173 participants from diverse geographic regions worldwide completed an online survey comprising cognitive tests. The experimental results demonstrate that cognitive scores were higher in light mode compared to dark mode. Additionally, younger adults performed significantly better than older adults in light mode, while participants with academic education scored higher than those without in dark mode. In both modes, men outperformed women. A majority of females prefer light mode, while a higher proportion of males feel comfortable with both modes. These findings address the gap in understanding the impact of dark mode, offering practical insights in inclusive design practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it