Reading from Microfiche, a VDT, and the Printed Page: Subjective Fatigue and Performance

Cushman, William H.

doi:10.1177/001872088602800107

Cited by 103 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the results in these studies, Cushman [1986] found that subjects who read continuous text from positive contrast (light character) VDTs reported less visual fatigue (as measured on a subjective rating scale) than those who read from negative contrast (dark character) VDTs. This result occurred both with a white phosphor and a green phosphor VDT having a 60-cps refresher rate.…”

Section: Polaritycontrasting

confidence: 96%

Reading text from computer screens

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews empirical studies concerning the readability of text from computer screens. The review focuses on the form and physical attributes of complex, realistic displays of text material. Most studies comparing paper and computer screen readability show that screens are less readable than paper. There are many factors that could affect the readability of computer screens. The factors explored in this review are the features of characters, the formatting of the screen, the contrast and color of the characters and background, and dynamic aspects of the screen. Numerous areas for future research are pinpointed. INTRODUCTIONThe increase in the number of computer screens and computer screen users in the industrial world is staggering and promises to be even greater in the future. On the basis of figures from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, approximately 10 million American workers currently use computer screens daily to perform their jobs. By 1990 it is expected that this number will be 20 million, and by the year 2000, 40 million workers will use computer screens [Mansfield 19851. The computer screen is used extensively as an input/output device for computer systems, and it can be used to display many different types of information, such as graphic and pictorial. One of the primary uses for the computer screen, however, is the display of text.The readability of text from computer screens is an issue that has increased in importance with the increasing frequency Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission. and range of computer screen use. One use is word processing, which requires reading large amounts of text from computer screens. Other applications include the electronic publishing of books and journals [Lancaster and Warner 1985;Moray 1980;Senders 1977;Weyer 1982; Wright and Lickorish 19841 and videotext [Bown et al. 1980;Malloy 1983; Reynolds 19821. Computerized information retrieval occurs in library searches, electronic mail, and retrieval of information from on-line technical manuals. In all of these applications, a large number of characteristics of text on computer screens could potentially affect how easily people can extract information from screens (cf. Shneiderman [1980]). The purpose of this paper is to review empirical studies concerning factors affecting the readability of text on computer screens.The literature on the use of computer screens has increased dramatically in the last few years. Books by Cakir et al. [1980] and Grandjean and Vigliani [1980] have provided coverage of some of the basic issues and research findings involving computer screen use. Additional research on factors influencing re...

show abstract

Section: Polaritycontrasting

confidence: 96%

Reading text from computer screens

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mayes, Sims & Koonce, 2001;Noyes & Garland, 2003;Rice, 1994), while some indicated only minimal differences between the two presentational formats (e.g. Cushman, 1986;Muter & Maurutto, 1991;Oborne & Holton, 1988). Noyes and Garland (2003) explained that the inconsistency in the findings appears primarily due to variations in the methodologies employed; different experimental designs make comparative interpretation difficult, especially where the computer-based learning format is used as an adjunct to paper-based instruction, or where study time is not matched.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A research on comprehension differences between print and screen reading

Sun

Shieh

Huang

2013

SAJEMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1980s, extensive research has been conducted comparing reading comprehension from printed text and computer screens. The conclusions, however, are not very consistent. As reading from computer screens requires a certain degree of individual technical skill, such variables should be objectively taken into consideration when conducting an experiment regarding the comparison between print and screen reading. This study analyses the difference in the level of understanding of the two presentational formats (text on printed pages and hypertext on computer screens) for people between 45−54 years of age (i.e. "middleaged" adults). In our experimental findings there were no significant differences between the levels of comprehension for print and screen presentations. With regard to individual differences in gender, age group and educational level, the findings are as follows: gender and education effects on print reading comprehension performance were significant, while those on screen reading comprehension performance were not. For middle-aged computer learners, the main effect of age group on both print and screen reading comprehension performance was insignificant. In contrast, linear texts of traditional paper-based material are better for middle-aged readers' literal text comprehension, while hypertext is beneficial to their inferential text comprehension. It is also suggested that hypermedia could be used as a cognitive tool for improving middle-aged adults' inferential abilities on reading comprehension, provided that they were trained adequately to use available computers.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, several other studies (Askwall, 1985;Cushman, 1986;Muter & Maurutto, 1991;Holzinger et al, 2011) reported no reading speed difference between screens and paper. In the Cushman (1986) experiment, 76 subjects read continuous text for 80 minutes using microfiche, video display terminals and printed paper copy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Nonetheless, many studies on the effect of presentation medium on reading comprehension have been conducted since 1980s. Most of the studies (Muter, Latremouille, Treurniet, & Beam, 1982;Kruk & Muter, 1984;Cushman, 1986;Feldmann & Fish, 1987;Muter & Maurutto, 1991;McKnight, Dillon, Ricardson, Haraldsson, & Spinks, 1992;Pommerich, 2004;Higgins, Russell, & Hoffmann, 2005;Baker, 2010;Holzinger et al, 2011) have reported no significant reading comprehension differences between the two media. Muter, Latremouille, Treurniet, and Beam (1982) required 32 subjects to answer 25 multiple-choice questions after reading text for two hours, with half of the subjects reading from a videotext terminal and the other half from a book.…”

Section: International Journal Of Research Studies In Educational Tecmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance

Kim¹,

Kim²

2013

IJRSET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to examine differences in reading performance when an electronic test format with a scrolling text mode on a LCD monitor and a traditional paper test format were used to present reading tests to teenagers who belong to Generation Z. In this study, participants were 108 high school students who each read two different reading passages, one from paper and the other from an LCD monitor. The results show that teenagers' reading performance is affected by a presentation medium. Teenagers scored significantly higher on the paper reading comprehension tests than on the electronic ones, with average scores of 76 and 61 respectively. In addition, teenagers took much longer time to read passages and answer questions on the electronic tests than the paper tests. The paper tests only took teenagers an average of 10 minutes, but the electronic tests took an average of 16 minutes to complete. Several other variables such as gender and presentation medium preference were also tested against the variables of reading performance. These findings have strong implications for educators and educational administrators.

show abstract

Reading from Microfiche, a VDT, and the Printed Page: Subjective Fatigue and Performance

Cited by 103 publications

References 9 publications

Reading text from computer screens

Reading text from computer screens

A research on comprehension differences between print and screen reading

Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About