Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference?

Köpper, Maja; Mayr, Susanne; Buchner, Axel

doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757

Cited by 37 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From the responses obtained, participants considered this system to be the most comfortable, and noted that the smartphone backlight and the weight of the glasses were too uncomfortable. This is consistent with a previous report, in which participants experienced increased discomfort and eye strain when scanning text on a screen for both short and longer periods compared to scanning text on paper [ 71 ]. Further supporting these responses, Stroop test performance was higher when participants used the paper-based display, implying that tasks involving words or reading are better accomplished when using paper rather than when reading from a screen.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Information presentation through a head-worn display (“smart glasses”) has a smaller influence on the temporal structure of gait variability during dual-task gait compared to handheld displays (paper-based system and smartphone)

Sedighi

Ulman

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need to complete multiple tasks concurrently is a common occurrence both daily life and in occupational activities, which can often include simultaneous cognitive and physical demands. As one example, there is increasing availability of head-worn display technologies that can be employed when a user is mobile (e.g., while walking). This new method of information presentation may, however, introduce risks of adverse outcomes such as a decrement to gait performance. The goal of this study was thus to quantify the effects of a head-worn display (i.e., smart glasses) on motor variability during gait and to compare these effects with those of other common information displays (i.e., smartphone and paper-based system). Twenty participants completed four walking conditions, as a single task and in three dual-task conditions (three information displays). In the dual-task conditions, the information display was used to present several cognitive tasks. Three different measures were used to quantify variability in gait parameters for each walking condition (using the cycle-to-cycle standard deviation, sample entropy, and the “goal-equivalent manifold” approach). Our results indicated that participants used less adaptable gait strategies in dual-task walking using the paper-based system and smartphone conditions compared with single-task walking. Gait performance, however, was less affected during dual-task walking with the smart glasses. We conclude that the risk of an adverse gait event (e.g., a fall) in head-down walking conditions (i.e., the paper-based system and smartphone conditions) were higher than in single-task walking, and that head-worn displays might help reduce the risk of such events during dual-task gait conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Information presentation through a head-worn display (“smart glasses”) has a smaller influence on the temporal structure of gait variability during dual-task gait compared to handheld displays (paper-based system and smartphone)

Sedighi

Ulman

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sample size in this particular study was, though, quite small (n = 25 in each group, and only two were experienced Kindle users). Nevertheless, similar claims concerning format effects on the reading experience and/or on the recollection of what has been read have also been made by a number of other researchers over the years (e.g., see Ackerman and Goldsmith, 2011;Delgado et al, 2018;Dell'Antonia, 2011;Grothaus, 2019;Halamis and Elbaz, 2019;Hou et al, 2017;Mangen et al, 2013;Parish-Morris et al, 2013;Roseberry et al, 2009;Singer and Alexander, 2017;Troseth et al, 2020;Wolf, 2018;Woody et al, 2010; though see also Köpper, Mayr and Buchner, 2016). Although there is not space to discuss these studies in detail here, in general, there would appear to be some agreement for a modest, albeit nuanced, influence of reading format on various outcome measures (see also Walsh, 2016, for a review).…”

Section: Do Physical Books Really Convey Information Better Than the supporting

confidence: 53%

The Multisensory Experience of Handling and Reading Books

Spence

2020

Multisens. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The failure of e-books to take over from the traditional print format, as was so confidently predicted would happen only a few years ago, highlights how there is more to reading than merely the content of what we see. In fact, like any other object, the experience of interacting with a book, especially an old or historic volume, offers the reader the potential for a multisensory encounter. One that involves not only what the book looks and feels like, both the weight of the volume and the feel of the pages, but also the distinctive smell. In fact, one might also want to consider the particular sound made by the pages as they are turned over. However, it is the smell of older, and seemingly more olfactorily-redolent, works that appears to be especially effective at triggering nostalgic associations amongst readers. It is therefore only by understanding the multisensory nature of handling books, as stressed by this review, that one can really hope to fully appreciate the enduring appeal of the traditional format in the modern digital era. Several recent exhibitions that have attempted to engage their visitors by means of exploring the multisensory appeal of historic books or manuscripts in their collections are briefly discussed. While the multisensory mental imagery that is typically evoked by reading is unlikely to differ much between the print and e-book formats, there is nevertheless still some evidence to suggest that physical books can occasionally convey information more effectively than their digital counterparts.

show abstract

“…A main difference between the iPad app and the chart is the digital display of text compared to standard print. Recent studies have reported few significant differences in reading speed between paper and liquid crystal display (LCD) screens (Köpper, Mayr, & Buchner, 2016 ; Noyes & Garland, 2008 ), but it is still a matter of debate as to whether reading is better in paper or LCD (Kang, Wang, & Lin, 2009 ). In order to render the sentences accurately, the iPad app is designed to run on the Retina display, the LCD screen available on iPad 3 and later versions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart

Calabrèse

et al. 2018

Journal of Vision

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our purpose was to compare reading performance measured with the MNREAD Acuity Chart and an iPad application (app) version of the same test for both normally sighted and low-vision participants. Our methods included 165 participants with normal vision and 43 participants with low vision tested on the standard printed MNREAD and on the iPad app version of the test. Maximum Reading Speed, Critical Print Size, Reading Acuity, and Reading Accessibility Index were compared using linear mixed-effects models to identify any potential differences in test performance between the printed chart and the iPad app. Our results showed the following: For normal vision, chart and iPad yield similar estimates of Critical Print Size and Reading Acuity. The iPad provides significantly slower estimates of Maximum Reading Speed than the chart, with a greater difference for faster readers. The difference was on average 3% at 100 words per minute (wpm), 6% at 150 wpm, 9% at 200 wpm, and 12% at 250 wpm. For low vision, Maximum Reading Speed, Reading Accessibility Index, and Critical Print Size are equivalent on the iPad and chart. Only the Reading Acuity is significantly smaller (I. E., better) when measured on the digital version of the test, but by only 0.03 logMAR (p = 0.013). Our conclusions were that, overall, MNREAD parameters measured with the printed chart and the iPad app are very similar. The difference found in Maximum Reading Speed for the normally sighted participants can be explained by differences in the method for timing the reading trials.

show abstract

Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference?

Cited by 37 publications

References 44 publications

Information presentation through a head-worn display (“smart glasses”) has a smaller influence on the temporal structure of gait variability during dual-task gait compared to handheld displays (paper-based system and smartphone)

Information presentation through a head-worn display (“smart glasses”) has a smaller influence on the temporal structure of gait variability during dual-task gait compared to handheld displays (paper-based system and smartphone)

The Multisensory Experience of Handling and Reading Books

Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About