可能性が低減された

衝撃による破損の可能性が低減された車両用ライト。

ChatGPT:

"A vehicle light with a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact."

Key Translation Points:

• 「衝撃による」→「due to impact」
  • Specifies the cause of potential damage.
• 「破損の可能性」→「likelihood of damage」
  • "Likelihood" conveys the probability aspect, keeping it natural.
• 「低減された」→「with a reduced likelihood」
  • Keeps the passive nuance while making the phrase flow naturally.
• 「車両用ライト」→「vehicle light」
  • General but precise term for a light used in vehicles.

Let me know if you prefer a different nuance, such as emphasizing the structural design that reduces damage!

あなた:

How about 1. A vehicle light that has a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact. 2. A vehicle light of which the likelihood of damage due to impact is reduced.

 

ChatGPT:

Both of your options are grammatically correct, but the first one sounds more natural and commonly used in technical descriptions. Here's my assessment:

1. "A vehicle light that has a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact."

   • This is natural and clear.
   • "That has" makes it easy to read and avoids awkward phrasing.
   • Commonly used in technical English and product descriptions.

2. "A vehicle light of which the likelihood of damage due to impact is reduced."

   • This structure is grammatically correct but slightly awkward.
   • "Of which" is less commonly used in modern technical English.
   • The sentence sounds more formal and less fluid than the first one.

Recommendation:

The first option is better for naturalness and readability.

If you want a slightly more concise and formal version:
✅ "A vehicle light with a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact."

Would you like to emphasize any particular aspect, such as structural design or shock absorption?

いずれかに接続、配線

複数の端子のいずれかに接続された複数の信号配線

ChatGPT:

How about:
✔ "A plurality of signal wirings each connected to one of a plurality of terminals."

This version maintains clarity and avoids potential ambiguity.

あなた:

複数の端子のいずれかに接続された1つの信号配線

ChatGPT:

How about:
✔ "A signal wiring connected to one of a plurality of terminals."

This keeps the meaning clear and precise.

あなた:

How about "A signal wiring connected to any one of a plurality of terminals"?

ChatGPT:

✔ "A signal wiring connected to any one of a plurality of terminals."

This version emphasizes that the signal wiring can be connected to any of the multiple terminals, rather than just a specific one. It works well if the intention is to highlight flexibility in connection options.

あなた:

Is the word "wiring" appropriate? Isn't "wire" a better word?

ChatGPT:

Yes, "wire" is generally a better choice than "wiring" in this context.

• "Wire" refers to a single conductor or a single signal line, which aligns well with "one signal wire" being connected to one of multiple terminals.
• "Wiring" usually refers to an interconnected system of multiple wires or the entire wiring arrangement.

So, a more natural phrasing would be:
✔ "A signal wire connected to any one of a plurality of terminals."

あなた:

Is "wiring" generally acceptable?

ChatGPT:

"Wiring" is generally acceptable, but it depends on the level of specificity required in the technical context.

Key Differences:

• "Wire" → Typically refers to a single conductor or a specific signal line.
• "Wiring" → More commonly refers to an interconnected system or the overall layout of electrical connections.

Acceptability in Technical Writing:

• If the context refers to one specific connection or conductor, "wire" is more precise and preferred.
  • ✅ "A signal wire connected to any one of a plurality of terminals."
• If the context refers to a broader wiring structure (e.g., a bundle or circuit system), "wiring" can be acceptable.
  • ✅ "The wiring of the circuit board is optimized for signal integrity."

For your sentence, since it refers to one specific signal path, "wire" is the better choice. However, "wiring" would still be understandable but slightly less precise.

あなた:

When using "wiring", is it common, appropriate, and/or conventional to say "a wiring"?

ChatGPT:

No, "a wiring" is not common, appropriate, or conventional in standard English usage.

Why?

• "Wiring" is an uncountable noun (like "equipment" or "machinery"), referring to a system or network of electrical connections rather than an individual component.
• It is usually used without an article (e.g., "The wiring is damaged") or with a modifier (e.g., "the internal wiring" or "complex wiring").

Correct Usage:

✅ "The wiring of the device is optimized for efficiency."
✅ "Faulty wiring can cause short circuits."
✅ "Signal wiring should be properly shielded."

Incorrect Usage:

❌ "A wiring is installed inside the device."
❌ "I fixed a wiring in the circuit board."

Alternative:

If referring to one specific connection, "a wire" or "a wiring path" would be more appropriate: ✅ "A wire is connected to the terminal."
✅ "A wiring path is established for signal transmission."

So, unless you mean the entire wiring system, "a wiring" is not conventional and should be avoided.

より導電性が低い

基板部より導電性が低い基板保持部。

ChatGPT:

How about:
"A substrate holding portion having lower conductivity than the substrate portion."

あなた:

How about

1. A substrate holding portion having conductivity lower than the substrate portion.

2. A substrate holding portion having conductivity lower than that of the substrate portion.

3. A substrate holding portion having a conductivity lower than the substrate portion.

4. A substrate holding portion having a conductivity lower than that of the substrate portion.

5. A substrate holding portion having a lower conductivity than the substrate portion.

ChatGPT:

The best options are 2 and 4, as they clearly convey the comparison by using "than that of", making it unambiguous that "conductivity" refers to the substrate portion.

Among them, Option 2 is slightly more natural because "conductivity" is typically treated as an uncountable noun in scientific contexts, making "a conductivity" in Option 4 less common.

Thus, Option 2 is the most precise and natural:
✔ "A substrate holding portion having conductivity lower than that of the substrate portion."

静電気を除去

US2024102149(MOTHERSON INNOVATIONS CO LTD [GB])
[0107] Prior to coating the substrate was blown off thoroughly with ionised compressed air to remove any particulate that had settled on the surface and to remove static.
【０１００】
  [0108]被覆の前に、イオン化圧縮空気を用いて、基材を完全に吹き清めて表面上に積もった微粒子すべてを除去し、静電気を除去する。

The substrate was then loaded into the PVD coating drum and blown off a second time immediately prior to entering the vacuum coating chamber.
次いで、ＰＶＤ被覆ドラムに基材を装填し、真空被覆チャンバーに入れる直前に２回目の吹き清めを行う。

WO2020081223(ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS [US])
[0011] Static bars, also known as, static eliminators or anti-static bars provide one way to eliminate static eiectricity generated on a part passing through such a contact cleaning system during operation
【００１１】
  静電気除去装置（static eliminator）又は除電バー（anti-static bar）としても知られるスタティックバー（static bar）は、動作中にそのような接触クリーニングシステムを通過する部品上に生成される静電気をなくす１つの方法を提供する。

in contact cleaning apparatus, a static bar can be located at the outlet of the cleaning roller to provide a stream of ionised air to neutralise static on the cleaned substrate surface
接触クリーニング装置において、スタティックバーは、クリーニングされる基板表面上の静電気（static）を中和するイオン化空気のストリームを提供するために、クリーニングローラーの出口に位置することができる。

in certain systems, a second static bar can be located at the inlet of the cleaning roller to remove static from the substrate to be cleaned. 
或る特定のシステムにおいて、第２のスタティックバーは、クリーニングされる基板から静電気を除去するためにクリーニングローラーの入口に位置することができる。

碍管

US2018015870(MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP [JP])
[0013] Ground shields 25 , 35 made of, for example, metal such as aluminum or brass, or conductive resin are provided between the large diameter portions A of the insulators 21 , 31 and the ground layers 23 , 33 .
【００１３】
  絶縁物２１、３１の大径部Ａと接地層２３、３３との間には、例えばアルミニウムや黄銅などの金属または導電性樹脂等で構成された接地シールド２５、３５が設けられている。

The ground shields 25 , 35 are placed only on the pressure tank 2 side in FIG. 5, but may be provided on the porcelain tube 20 side.
図３では、圧力タンク２側にのみ接地シールド２５、３５が設置されているが、碍管２０側に設けることも可能である。

には形成されている：されている問題

回路基板には回路パターンが形成されている。

ChatGPT:

A circuit pattern is formed on the circuit board.

あなた:

回路基板には、半導体素子と外部電源を電気的に接続する回路パターンが形成されている。

ChatGPT:

A circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply is formed on the circuit board.

あなた:

How about 1. The circuit board is formed with a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply. 2. The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply. 3. The circuit board has a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply formed thereon.

ChatGPT:

Here’s an evaluation of each option in terms of clarity and naturalness:

1. "The circuit board is formed with a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

   • Issue: "Is formed with" is not the most natural phrasing for this context. It might suggest that the board itself was constructed using the circuit pattern, rather than simply having it on its surface.
   • Alternative: "The circuit board is provided with a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

2. "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

   • Pros: This is a clear and precise way to express the idea, commonly used in technical writing.
   • Cons: "Thereon" can sound a bit formal or old-fashioned, but it is technically correct and often used in patent writing.

3. "The circuit board has a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply formed thereon."

   • Issue: The phrase "formed thereon" seems to modify "external power supply" rather than "circuit pattern", which could lead to ambiguity.
   • Alternative: "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon, which electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

Best Choice:

Option 2 ("The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply.") is the most precise and natural for a technical context.

If you want a more modern and slightly less formal version, you could say:
✔ "The circuit board has a circuit pattern on it that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

あなた:

Which is better, your initial translation "A circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply is formed on the circuit board", or option 2 "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply"?

ChatGPT:

Both sentences are technically correct, but the choice depends on clarity, naturalness, and context (e.g., technical writing vs. general description). Here's a comparison:

1. My initial translation:

✔ "A circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply is formed on the circuit board."

• Pros:
  • More natural word order.
  • Clearly states that the circuit pattern is formed on the circuit board.
• Cons:
  • Slightly less formal than option 2.
  • Could be reworded for a more concise structure.

2. Option 2:

✔ "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

• Pros:
  • More formal and structured, making it suitable for patents or highly technical writing.
  • The use of "thereon" avoids ambiguity about what is formed where.
• Cons:
  • "Thereon" sounds a bit old-fashioned and is mostly used in legal or patent contexts.
  • Slightly more complex structure compared to the first option.

Which is better?

• If the context is patents or formal technical documentation, option 2 ("The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon...") is better due to its structured phrasing.
• If the context is general technical writing or easier readability, my initial translation ("A circuit pattern that electrically connects... is formed on the circuit board.") is better because it is clearer and more natural.

Would you like a revision that balances both clarity and technical formality?

上方を覆う

基板上の素子の上方を覆うカバー部材。

ChatGPT:

A cover member that covers the upper side of a component on a substrate.

あなた:

How about 1. A cover member that covers over a component on a substrate. 2. A cover member that covers a component on a substrate from above. 3. A cover member disposed over a component on a substrate. 4. A cover member disposed above a component on a substrate.

ChatGPT:

Here’s how each option compares in terms of clarity and nuance:

1. "A cover member that covers over a component on a substrate."

   • "Covers over" is somewhat redundant; "covers" alone is usually sufficient.
   • A more natural phrasing would be: "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate."

2. "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate from above."

   • This clearly specifies the direction but might be slightly wordy.
   • If you want to emphasize the coverage from above, this is a valid choice.

3. "A cover member disposed over a component on a substrate."

   • "Disposed over" suggests placement rather than active covering, making it more neutral.
   • This is a good option if you don’t want to emphasize the covering function explicitly.

4. "A cover member disposed above a component on a substrate."

   • This suggests that the cover member is located above the component but does not necessarily indicate direct coverage.
   • If the cover is meant to enclose or shield, "disposed over" (option 3) would be better.

Best choices:

• If the intent is to emphasize covering, option 2 ("covers a component... from above") is the clearest.
• If the intent is to describe placement rather than coverage, option 3 ("disposed over a component") is better.

Would you like further refinement based on the intended nuance?

あなた:

Does "covers" in "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate" sufficiently indicate the coverage from above? Could it also possibly mean the coverage from below?

ChatGPT:

In "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate," the verb "covers" generally implies coverage from above in most contexts, especially when referring to a cover member. However, it is not explicitly restricted to that interpretation—it could, in some cases, be ambiguous and allow for coverage from other directions, including from below.

If you want to ensure unambiguous coverage from above, using "covers from above" (option 2) or "disposed over" (option 3) would make it clearer. "Covers a component" alone leaves some room for interpretation, though in practical contexts, it's often assumed to mean coverage from above unless otherwise specified.

あなた:

基板上の複数の素子の上方を覆うカバー部材。

ChatGPT:

A cover member that covers the upper side of multiple components on a substrate.

あなた:

It is not necessary to say "the upper sides of" even though there are multiple components?

ChatGPT:

Yes, it is not necessary to say "the upper sides of" even though there are multiple components. The phrase "covers multiple components on a substrate" is generally understood to mean covering them from above, especially when referring to a "cover member." The natural assumption is that a cover is placed over the components rather than beneath or around them.

However, if you want to explicitly emphasize that the coverage is from above (to remove any ambiguity), you could say:

• "A cover member that covers multiple components on a substrate from above."
• "A cover member disposed over multiple components on a substrate."

Would you like to fine-tune it further based on a specific context?

あなた:

When you say "the upper side of a component" as in your initial translation, does it mean the upper portion of the component, or the area or space over the component?

ChatGPT:

When I initially wrote "covers the upper side of a component", it could be interpreted as covering the upper portion of the component itself, rather than the space above it. This phrasing might suggest that only the top surface of the component is being covered, rather than implying full coverage from above.

If the intended meaning is to indicate coverage over the entire area above multiple components (not just their top surfaces), then a better way to phrase it would be:

• "A cover member that covers multiple components on a substrate from above."
• "A cover member disposed over multiple components on a substrate."

These options make it clearer that the cover member is positioned above and extends over the components, rather than just covering their upper surfaces.

偏光素子

US9921152(KLA TENCOR CORP [US])
[0040] Collection optics 122 includes any suitable optical elements to collect light from the one or more structures formed on wafer 120 .
【００３０】
  集光光学系１２２は、ウェハ１２０上に形成された１個又は複数個の構造から集光するのに適する何らかの集光素子を有している。

Collection aperture stop 123 controls the NA of the collection optics subsystem.
集光開口絞り１２３は集光光学系サブシステムのＮＡを制御する。

Polarizing element 124 analyzes the desired polarization state. The polarizing element 124 is a polarizer or a compensator. 
偏光素子１２４は所望の偏光状態を検光する。偏光素子１２４は偏光器又は補償器である。

US11998487(PULSEMEDICA CORP [CA])
The light from the source 614 is directed towards the eye 612 through a polarizing element 626 , such as a quarter or half-wave plate, that changes the polarization of the light passing through it.
光源６１４からの光は、通過する光の偏光を変化させる４分の１または１／２波長板などの偏光素子６２６を通して眼６１２に向けられる。

The light is directed to the eye and the reflected off the eye returns through the same path and again passes through the polarizing element 626 which
光は、眼に向けられ、眼で反射された光は、同じ経路を通って戻り、再び偏光素子６２６を通過して、

again changes the polarization of the returning light
戻り光の偏光を再び変化させ、

so that the returning light has a different polarization from the source light and so can be separated from each other by the polarizing beam splitter 624 . 
戻り光が光源光とは異なる偏光を有するようにするので、偏光ビームスプリッタ６２４によって互いに分離できる。

US2023184996(3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY [US])
The light reflecting layer may include a multilayer optical film. The light reflecting layer may include polymeric multilayer optical film.
【００８２】
  光反射層は、多層光学フィルムを含み得る。光反射層は、ポリマー多層光学フィルムを含み得る。

The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a mirror element.
ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、ミラー素子として動作し得る。

The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a polarizer element.
ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、偏光素子として動作し得る。

The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a reflective polarizer element. The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a spectral filter.
ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、反射偏光素子として動作し得る。ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、スペクトルフィルタとして動作し得る。

ラインモへ移行

ケータイはもう多分10年以上ソフトバンクでしたが私のデータ使用量はほとんど毎月3ギガ未満なのでラインモに変えました。

ネットで申し込んで宅配でSIMカードが届き、交換。

グーグルフォンのPixel３。

移行はまあまあ簡単でした。

入射光量：原文への忠実度

センサーは、レンズへの入射光量を測定する。

ChatGPT:

The sensor measures the amount of incident light on the lens.

あなた:

How about "the incident light amount on the lens"?

ChatGPT:

"The incident light amount on the lens" is grammatically acceptable but sounds slightly unnatural. A more natural way to phrase it would be:

• "The sensor measures the amount of incident light on the lens." (Most natural)
• "The sensor measures the incident light level on the lens." (Acceptable)
• "The sensor measures the intensity of incident light on the lens." (If referring to light intensity rather than quantity)

Would you like a more technical or precise phrasing based on your specific context?

あなた:

センサーは、レンズへの入射光量Qを測定する。入射光量Qは制御装置に送られる。

ChatGPT:

How about:

• "The sensor measures the amount of incident light $Q$ on the lens. The incident light amount $Q$ is sent to the control device."

Or, for a slightly more natural flow:

• "The sensor measures the incident light amount $Q$ on the lens and sends it to the control device."

Would you like a more technical or formal alternative?

並行に

複数の半導体素子の配列に並行に設けられたバスバー。

ChatGPT:

How about:

• "A busbar provided in parallel with the array of semiconductor elements."
• "A busbar arranged parallel to the array of semiconductor elements."

Both versions convey the intended meaning clearly and naturally. Let me know if you have a preference!

あなた:

Are "in parallel with", "in parallel to", "parallel to" and "parallel with" all interchangeable?

ChatGPT:

"In parallel with," "in parallel to," "parallel to," and "parallel with" are mostly interchangeable, but there are subtle differences in usage and preference:

1. "In parallel with" → Most common in technical and engineering contexts, describing physical arrangements (e.g., "A busbar provided in parallel with the array of semiconductor elements").
2. "Parallel to" → More commonly used in general English (e.g., "The road runs parallel to the railway").
3. "Parallel with" → Acceptable but less commonly used than "parallel to" in general English. It can sometimes sound a bit awkward.
4. "In parallel to" → Less common and can sometimes sound unnatural. It's used in specific technical contexts, but "in parallel with" is generally preferred.

Best choice for your case:

✔ "In parallel with" (technical/engineering accuracy)
✔ "Parallel to" (natural and widely accepted)

搭載する

半導体チップを搭載する基板

ChatGPT:

How about:
"A substrate on which a semiconductor chip is mounted"
or
"A substrate that carries a semiconductor chip"?

Both versions are natural and precise. Let me know if you need a more literal or alternative phrasing! 😊

あなた:

How about "A substrate that mounts a semiconductor chip"?

ChatGPT:

"A substrate that mounts a semiconductor chip" is grammatically correct, but it is less commonly used because "mount" is typically an action performed by an external agent (e.g., a person or a machine), rather than by the substrate itself.

A more natural phrasing would be:

• "A substrate on which a semiconductor chip is mounted."
• "A substrate that supports a mounted semiconductor chip."
• "A substrate for mounting a semiconductor chip." (if referring to its intended function)

Would you like a more concise or technical version?

のみに接続

Which is better or more common? 1. Each transmission antenna is only connected to the amplification unit. 2. Each transmission antenna is connected only to the amplification unit. 3. Each transmission antenna is connected to the amplification unit only.

ChatGPT:

The most common and natural choice is Option 2:

✅ "Each transmission antenna is connected only to the amplification unit."

Explanation:

• Option 1 ("is only connected to") → This structure could be ambiguous because "only" before "connected" might imply that the antennas have no other function than being connected, rather than emphasizing exclusivity of the connection.
• Option 2 ("is connected only to") → This correctly emphasizes that the transmission antenna is connected exclusively to the amplification unit and nothing else.
• Option 3 ("is connected to ... only") → While grammatically fine, it sounds a bit less natural and could be misread as emphasizing "unit" rather than the exclusivity of the connection.

Thus, Option 2 is the clearest and most common way to express the intended meaning. 👍

あなた：

Option 1 was written by a native speaker of English. Would you still correct it to option 2?

ChatGPT:

If a native speaker wrote Option 1, I wouldn't necessarily correct it outright, but I would suggest Option 2 for greater clarity, especially in technical or formal writing.

Why?

• Option 1 ("Each transmission antenna is only connected to the amplification unit.") is grammatically correct, but "only" before "connected" could create ambiguity.

  • It might be interpreted as:
    "The sole purpose of each transmission antenna is to be connected (and do nothing else)."
  • Instead of emphasizing "it is connected to nothing else but the amplification unit", which is likely the intended meaning.

• Option 2 ("Each transmission antenna is connected only to the amplification unit.") avoids this ambiguity and clearly states that the connection is exclusive.

Would I change it?

• In casual conversation or informal writing, Option 1 is fine.
• In technical, legal, or formal writing, I would revise it to Option 2 for clarity.

Even native speakers sometimes phrase things in a way that could be clearer, especially in technical documents where precision matters. 😊

完了しているから完了形

I was ~ing/I had been ~ingの使い分け！【過去進行形/過去完了進行形】

真面目に英文法勉強してれば学ぶ内容だと思いますが、改めてバイリンガルの方の明快で詳しい説明を聞くと納得。

なんとも懇切丁寧で楽しい、完全バイリンガルの素晴らしい先生です。I'm not worthy!🙇‍♂️

色覚特性

US2022413320(PERFORMANCE VISION TECH INC [US])
The Human Visual System and Color Vision
【００１１】
  人間の視覚系及び色覚

[0031] For convenience, certain color characteristics of human vision are briefly summarized.
 便宜上、人間の特定の色覚特性について簡単に要約する。

The human visual system is sensitive to a narrow band of electromagnetic radiation referred to herein as light.
人間の視覚系は、本明細書で光と称する狭帯域の電磁放射線に敏感である。

Within this band of radiation, VIS, with wavelengths from about 380 nanometers (nm) to about 760 nm, the visual system perceives different wavelengths as unique and distinct colors (see Table 1).
 約３８０ナノメートル（ｎｍ）～約７６０ｎｍの波長を有するこの放射帯域内、ＶＩＳでは、視覚系は、異なる波長を特有且つ別個の色として知覚する（表１参照）。

US2024130804(FURUKAWA ELECTRIC CO LTD [JP])
[0007] Furthermore, the appearance of the light projected on the body surface
【０００７】
  さらに、体表に映し出される光の見え方は、

varies depending on the state of the patient such as sex and the thickness of the subcutaneous tissue, the environment such as the brightness of the operating room and the treatment room, the state of the user such as the physical condition and the color vision characteristic of the user, and the like.
性別や皮下組織の厚さのような患者の状態、手術室や処置室の明るさのような環境、使用者の体調や色覚特性のような使用者の状態などによっても異なる。

 

Translate: 色覚特性の補正フィルタおよび色覚検査方法

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"Color Vision Correction Filter and Color Vision Testing Method"

Translation Notes:

1. 色覚特性 (color vision)
   Translated as "color vision" to describe the characteristics or abilities related to color perception.

2. 補正フィルタ (correction filter)
   Translated as "correction filter," a common term for filters designed to adjust or compensate for visual characteristics.

3. 色覚検査方法 (color vision testing method)
   Translated as "color vision testing method," which accurately conveys a method used to examine or test color vision.

If you need refinements or adjustments for a specific context, let me know!

あなた:

How about "color vision characteristics"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Using "color vision characteristics" is a valid alternative, depending on the context. Here's a revised version with that phrasing:

"Color Vision Characteristics Correction Filter and Color Vision Testing Method"

Considerations:

1. "Color Vision Characteristics"
   This phrasing emphasizes specific traits or properties of color vision, which might align better with contexts involving detailed analysis or correction of those traits.

2. Formal and Precise Tone
   If the document is technical or academic, "color vision characteristics" might sound more formal and precise than just "color vision."

However, if 色覚特性 is being used broadly or more generally, "color vision" alone could suffice to keep the phrase concise.

Let me know which nuance you'd like to emphasize, and I can adjust accordingly!