Photic‐ and Pattern‐induced Seizures

Harding. (2005). Photic‐ and Pattern‐induced Seizures: Expert Consensus of the Epilepsy Foundation of America Working Group.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2005

ISSN

1528-1167

DOI

10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.31305.x

DOI registrant

Wiley

Link

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.31305.x

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Motion-Triggered Harm
  • Web design — parallax-scroll homepages causing vestibular symptoms, CSS animations that ignore prefers-reduced-motion, and autoplaying carousels and background video. Mobile platforms — full-screen transitions producing motion sickness and haptic-feedback intensity, governed by system-level reduced-motion settings. Video games and VR — motion sickness from artificial-locomotion schemes, field-of-view, and head-tracking latency, with comfort ratings and teleport-locomotion as defences. Video and broadcast — photosensitive-epilepsy seizure incidents from broadcast video (the 1997 Pokémon "Porygon" episode, ~700 viewers), now constrained by flash-pattern caps in broadcast standards. Public-display advertising and signage — digital billboards whose flash patterns trigger seizures or impair driver attention, subject to municipal flash-rate regulation

    This sourceThe Epilepsy Foundation of America working-group consensus that a flash is hazardous above about 20 cd/m2, 3 Hz and 0.006 steradians of visual angle and that saturated-red transitions and dense striped patterns are risks.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    “A flash is a potential hazard if it has luminance >or=20 cd/m2, occurs at a frequency of >or=3 Hz, and occupies a solid visual angle of >or=0.006 steradians”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:0405701b73e1 · see in the full table