1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. AILA Review
  4. Volume 38, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 38, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

Most reading technologies claim to provide experiences similar to reading on print paper. This study compared reading across different digital platforms and print books. Digital reading mediums used in this study were reading on a PC screen, a handheld e-reader and an iPad. A total of eighty participants enrolled in various university courses took part in this experiment. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the reading conditions, and subsequent eye-tracking measurements were compared. Results indicated that the mean fixation duration was statistically different only for the reading from the PC condition, whereas it was similar across all other conditions. The reading time and the total number of fixations were comparable for the dedicated e-reader, iPad and printed book. This study provides empirical evidence that e-reading tools closely mimic book-reading conditions.

© AILA
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aila.24033.men
2025-07-31
2026-03-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/aila.24033.men
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aila.24033.men.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/aila.24033.men&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abanomey, A. A.
    (2013) Do EFL Saudi learners perform differently with online reading? An exploratory study. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 25(1), 1–11. 10.1016/j.jksult.2012.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2012.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T.
    (2012) Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in human behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali, A. Z. M., Wahid, R., Samsudin, K., & Idris, M. Z.
    (2013) Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type Have Effects on Web Text Readability?. International Education Studies, 6(3), 26–35. 10.5539/ies.v6n3p26
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n3p26 [Google Scholar]
  4. Annisette, L. E., & Lafreniere, K. D.
    (2017) Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 1151, 154–158. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.043
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.043 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arsham, H.
    (2002) Impact of the Internet on Learning and Teaching. USDLA Journal, 16(3). RetrievedOctober 25, 2024fromhttps://www.learntechlib.org/p/93561/
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Aydemir, Z., Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B.
    (2013) The effect of reading from screen on the 5th grade elementary students’ level of reading comprehension on informative and narrative type of texts. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 13(4), 2272–2276. 10.12738/estp.2013.4.1294
     https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.4.1294 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ballatore, A., & Natale, S.
    (2016) E-readers and the death of the book: Or, new media and the myth of the disappearing medium. New media & society, 18(10), 2379–2394. 10.1177/1461444815586984
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815586984 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baron, N. S., Calixte, R. M., & Havewala, M.
    (2017) The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 590–604. 10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T.
    (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8(12), e83676. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083676
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083676 [Google Scholar]
  10. Beymer, D., & Russell, D. M.
    (2005, April). WebGazeAnalyzer: a system for capturing and analysing web reading behavior using eye gaze. InCHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp.1913–1916). 10.1145/1056808.1057055
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1057055 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biedert, R., Buscher, G., & Dengel, A.
    (2009) The eye book — Using Eye Tracking to Enhance the Reading Experience. Informatik-Spektrum, 33(3), 272–281. 10.1007/s00287‑009‑0381‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-009-0381-2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burstyn, J., & Herriotts, M. A.
    (2010) gBook: an e-book reader with physical document navigation techniques. InCHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.4369–4374). 10.1145/1753846.1754155
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754155 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A.
    (1981) Cognitive processes in reading: Models based on readers’ eye fixations. InA. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp.177–213). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315108506
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315108506 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carrière, J. C., & Eco, U.
    (2011) This is not the end of the book: A conversation curated by Jean-Philippe de Tonnac. Random House.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Castellano, J. A.
    (1992) Handbook of display technology. San Diego: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, D. W., & Catrambone, R.
    (2015) Paper vs. screen: Effects on reading comprehension, metacognition, and reader behavior. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 332–336. 10.1177/1541931215591069
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591069 [Google Scholar]
  17. Clinton, V.
    (2019) Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of research in reading, 42(2), 288–325. 10.1111/1467‑9817.12269
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269 [Google Scholar]
  18. Conlon, E., & Sanders, M.
    (2011) The reading rate and comprehension of adults with impaired reading skills or visual discomfort. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(2), 193–214. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2009.01421.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01421.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W.
    (2012) Effects of eBook readers and tablet computers on reading comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 131–140. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:64273136
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cuiñas, A. A. F., & Augusto, V. P.
    (2022) The Smell of Printed Books: A Qualitative Comparison between Printed and Digital Formats. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6(1), 214–225. 10.29333/ajqr/12053
     https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12053 [Google Scholar]
  21. Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D.
    (2013) E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & education, 621, 18–23. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016 [Google Scholar]
  22. Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C.
    (2012) Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading and Writing, 25(4), 831–856. 10.1007/s11145‑011‑9302‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9302-2 [Google Scholar]
  23. De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G.
    (2002) Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: an experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 145–155. 10.1037/0022‑0663.94.1.145
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.145 [Google Scholar]
  24. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L.
    (2018) Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational research review, 251, 23–38. 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. DeSilver, D.
    (2014) Overall Book Readership Stable, But E-Books Becoming More Popular; Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/21/overall-book-readership-stable-but-e-books-becoming-more-popular/. Accessed on21 May 2024.
  26. Dillon, A.
    (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297–1326. 10.1080/00140139208967394
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967394 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J.
    (1988) Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The computer journal, 31(5), 457–464. 10.1093/comjnl/31.5.457
     https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/31.5.457 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dillon, T. W., & Emurian, H. H.
    (1995) Reports of visual fatigue resulting from use of a video display unit. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(1), 77–84. 10.1016/0747‑5632(94)00024‑C
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(94)00024-C [Google Scholar]
  29. Dobler, E.
    (2015) E-textbooks: A personalised learning experience or a digital distraction?Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 58(6), 482–491. 10.1002/jaal.391
     https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.391 [Google Scholar]
  30. Driscoll, B., & Squires, C.
    (2018) ‘Oh look, a Ferry’; or the smell of paper books. TXT, (51), 64–70. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/28849
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dyson, M. C.
    (2004) How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & information technology, 23(6), 377–393. 10.1080/01449290410001715714
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001715714 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ebrahimi, S. S.
    (2016) Effect of digital reading on comprehension of English prose texts in EFL/ESL contexts. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 5(2), 111–117. 10.18488/journal.23/2016.5.2/23.2.111.117
     https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.23/2016.5.2/23.2.111.117 [Google Scholar]
  33. Eden, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y.
    (2013) The effect of format on performance: Editing text in print versus digital formats. British journal of educational technology, 44(5), 846–856. 10.1111/j.1467‑8535.2012.01332.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01332.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Findlay, J. M., & Gilchrist, I. D.
    (2003) Active vision: The Psychology of looking and seeing. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524793.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524793.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gallant, D. T., Seniuk, A. G., & Vertegaal, R.
    (2008) Towards more paper-like input: flexible input devices for foldable interaction styles. Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 283–286. 10.1145/1449715.1449762
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1449715.1449762 [Google Scholar]
  36. Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M.
    (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 43–52. 10.1080/01449290310001638504
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001638504 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gomez, J.
    (2008) Will books disappear?InJ. Gomez, Print is Dead (pp.175–193). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. 10.1007/978‑1‑4299‑5477‑8_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4299-5477-8_11 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A.
    (2007) Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 583–599. 10.1111/j.1467‑8535.2006.00640.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00640.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Guimbretière, F.
    (2003, November). Paper augmented digital documents. Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 51–60. 10.1145/964696.964702
     https://doi.org/10.1145/964696.964702 [Google Scholar]
  40. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F.
    (1990) Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 417–429. 10.1037//0278‑7393.16.3.417
     https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.3.417 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hillesund, T.
    (2010) Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web and electronic paper. First Monday, 15(4). 10.5210/fm.v15i4.2762
     https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i4.2762 [Google Scholar]
  42. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J.
    (2011) Eye Tracking: a Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press USA — OSO.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Jacobs, A. M.
    (2015) Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. InR. M. Willems (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp.135–159). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G.
    (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674–1684. 10.1080/10447318.2021.1908668
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1908668 [Google Scholar]
  45. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1980) A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87(4), 329–354. 10.1037/0033‑295X.87.4.329
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J. J., & Lin, R.
    (2009) Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2), 49–52. 10.1016/j.displa.2008.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2008.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E.
    (2006) Computerised presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and writing, 19(1), 1–19. 10.1007/s11145‑003‑8128‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y [Google Scholar]
  48. Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L.
    (2018) Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  49. Köpper, M., Mayr, S., & Buchner, A.
    (2016) Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference?. Ergonomics, 59(5), 615–632. 10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757 [Google Scholar]
  50. Korat, O., & Shamir, A.
    (2007) Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 248–259. 10.1111/j.1365‑2729.2006.00213.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00213.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M.
    (2013) Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PloS one, 8(2), e56178. 10.1371/journal.pone.0056178
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuijpers, M. M., Douglas, S., & Kuiken, D.
    (2020) Capturing the ways we read: Introducing the reading habits questionnaire. Anglistik, 31(1), 53–69. 10.33675/ANGL/2020/1/6
     https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2020/1/6 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kurata, K., Ishita, E., Miyata, Y., & Minami, Y.
    (2016) Print or digital? Reading behavior and preferences in Japan. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 884–894. 10.1002/asi.23712
     https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23712 [Google Scholar]
  54. Labrecque, L. I., vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T. P., & Hofacker, C. F.
    (2013) Consumer power: Evolution in the digital age. Journal of interactive marketing, 27(4), 257–269. 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lahey, B., Girouard, A., Burleson, W., & Vertegaal, R.
    (2011) PaperPhone: understanding the use of bend gestures in mobile devices with flexible electronic paper displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1303–1312. 10.1145/1978942.1979136
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979136 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lauer, G.
    (2020) Lesen im digitalen Zeitalter. Wbg Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R.
    (2014) Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 351, 455–463. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y.
    (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32(1), 1–7. 10.1016/j.displa.2010.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2010.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W.
    (2013) Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. InD. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp.1150–1181). International Reading Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X.
    (2006) Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior research methods, 38(2), 202–210. 10.3758/BF03192770
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192770 [Google Scholar]
  61. Liao, C., Guimbretière, F., Hinckley, K., & Hollan, J.
    (2008) Papiercraft: A gesture-based command system for interactive paper. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14(4), 1–27. 10.1145/1314683.1314686
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1314683.1314686 [Google Scholar]
  62. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D.
    (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 43–55. 10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lin, H., Wu, F. G., & Cheng, Y.-Y.
    (2013) Legibility and visual fatigue affected by text direction, screen size and character size on color LCD e-reader. Displays, 34(1), 49–58. 10.1016/j.displa.2012.11.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2012.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  64. Liu, Z.
    (2005) Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation, 61(6), 700–712. 10.1108/00220410510632040
     https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040 [Google Scholar]
  65. Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., Epstein, I., & Fayard, P.
    (2003) Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication, 25(2), 99–128. 10.1177/1075547003259209
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259209 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D.
    (2014) Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific study of literature, 4(2), 150–177. 10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man [Google Scholar]
  67. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K.
    (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 581, 61–68. 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  68. Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L.
    (2013) E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms?. Applied cognitive psychology, 27(4), 512–519. 10.1002/acp.2930
     https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2930 [Google Scholar]
  69. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N.
    (2013) An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356–384. 10.1080/00220973.2012.727885
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727885 [Google Scholar]
  70. McLaughlin, M.
    (2012), Reading Comprehension: What Every Teacher Needs to Know. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 432–440. 10.1002/TRTR.01064
     https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01064 [Google Scholar]
  71. Mendieta, E.
    (2021) Embracing a culture of lifelong learning: from the paperback to the ebook: lifelong learning in the age of the internet (Document No. UIL/2021/PI/H/6). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377816
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Menz, C., & Groner, R.
    (1984) The acquisition of a new letter system: effects of word length and redundancy. Advances in Psychology, 221, 213–222. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)61836‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61836-1 [Google Scholar]
  73. Milliot, J.
    (2014) E-books remain third: print formats outsell digital in the first half of 2014. Publishers Weekly, 261(39), 6–7. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/64170-e-books-remain-third.html
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Miranda, A. M., Nunes-Pereira, E. J., Baskaran, K., & Macedo, A. F.
    (2018) Eye movements, convergence distance and pupil-size when reading from smartphone, computer, print and tablet. Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science, 111(1), 1–5. 10.5384/sjovs.vol11i1p1‑5
     https://doi.org/10.5384/sjovs.vol11i1p1-5 [Google Scholar]
  75. Moody, A. K., Justice, L. M., & Cabell, S. Q.
    (2010) Electronic versus traditional storybooks: Relative influence on preschool children’s engagement and communication. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 294–313. 10.1177/1468798410372162
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798410372162 [Google Scholar]
  76. Morrison, R. E.
    (1984) Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and performance, 10(5), 667–682. 10.1037/0096‑1523.10.5.667
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.667 [Google Scholar]
  77. Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J.
    (2011) E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8(6), 49–60. 10.28945/1404
     https://doi.org/10.28945/1404 [Google Scholar]
  78. Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H.
    (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695–699. 10.1111/j.1532‑5415.2005.53221.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x [Google Scholar]
  79. Nielsen, J.
    (2010) iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Retrieved fromwww.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html. Accessed21 May 2024
  80. Oborne, D. J., & Holton, D.
    (1988) Reading from screen versus paper: there is no difference. International journal of man-machine studies, 28(1), 1–9. 10.1016/S0020‑7373(88)80049‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(88)80049-X [Google Scholar]
  81. O’Toole, K. J., & Kannass, K. N.
    (2018) Emergent literacy in print and electronic contexts: The influence of book type, narration source, and attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1731, 100–115. 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.03.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  82. Paczkowski, J.
    (2013) Apple’s iTunes U Hits One Billion Downloads. Retrieved from: allthingsd.com/20130228/apples-itunes-u-hits-1-billion-downloads/. Accessed21 May 2024.
  83. Perrin, A.
    (2022, January6). Three-in-ten Americans now read e-books. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/06/three-in-ten-americans-now-read-e-books/
  84. Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K.
    (1990) Eye movements and lexical access in reading. InD. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp.143–163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 10.4324/9780203052389
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203052389 [Google Scholar]
  85. Prensky, M.
    (2013) Our brains extended. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 22–27. https://ascd.org/el/articles/our-brains-extended
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Rainie, L., & Duggan, M.
    (2012) E-book reading jumps; print book reading declines. Pew Internet & American Life Project, December, 271. Retrieved from: hartfordinfo.org/issues/wsd/Literacy/PIP_Reading%20and%20ebooks_12.27.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P.
    (2005) Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current directions in psychological science, 14(5), 276–279. 10.1111/j.0963‑7214.2005.00380.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00380.x [Google Scholar]
  88. Rayner, K.
    (1978) Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological bulletin, 85(3), 618–660. 10.1037/0033‑2909.85.3.618
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618 [Google Scholar]
  89. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J.
    (2006) Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific studies of reading, 10(3), 241–255. 10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3 [Google Scholar]
  90. Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D.
    (2010) Models of the reading process. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(6), 787–799. 10.1002/wcs.68
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.68 [Google Scholar]
  91. Reingold, E. M., & Rayner, K.
    (2006) Examining the word identification stages hypothesised by the E-Z Reader model. Psychological Science, 17(9), 742–746. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2006.01775.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01775.x [Google Scholar]
  92. Rosenfield, M.
    (2011) Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31(5), 502–515. 10.1111/j.1475‑1313.2011.00834.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00834.x [Google Scholar]
  93. Schwabe, A., Brandl, L., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Stocker, G.
    (2021) Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(2), 319–338. 10.1111/1467‑9817.12337
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12337 [Google Scholar]
  94. Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R.
    (2003) The myth of the paperless office (1st paperback ed). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P.
    (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 367–374. 10.1111/j.1475‑1313.2012.00928.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00928.x [Google Scholar]
  96. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R.
    (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. 10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  97. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., & Groner, R.
    (2010) Improving the usability of e-book readers. Journal of usability studies, 6(1), 25–38. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2016899.2016902
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A.
    (2017) Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of educational research, 87(6), 1007–1041. 10.3102/0034654317722961
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961 [Google Scholar]
  99. Singer, L. M., Alexander, P. A., & Berkowitz, L. E.
    (2019) Effects of processing time on comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 101–115. 10.1080/00220973.2017.1411877
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1411877 [Google Scholar]
  100. Spence, C.
    (2020) The Multisensory Experience of Handling and Reading Books. Multisensory Research, 33(8), 902–928. 10.1163/22134808‑bja10015
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10015 [Google Scholar]
  101. Tanner, M. J.
    (2014) Digital vs. print: Reading comprehension and the future of the book. School of Information Student Research Journal, 4(2). 10.31979/2575‑2499.040206
     https://doi.org/10.31979/2575-2499.040206 [Google Scholar]
  102. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D. W.
    (2012) Article and book reading patterns of scholars: Findings for publishers. Learned publishing, 25(4), 279–291. 10.1087/20120407
     https://doi.org/10.1087/20120407 [Google Scholar]
  103. Tyner, K.
    (2014) Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Routledge. 10.4324/9781410601971
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601971 [Google Scholar]
  104. Walsh, G.
    (2016) Screen and paper reading research — a literature review. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47(3), 160–173. 10.1080/00048623.2016.1227661
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2016.1227661 [Google Scholar]
  105. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T.
    (2010) New technology and digital worlds: Analysing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education, 34(1), 179–225. 10.3102/0091732X09349791
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791 [Google Scholar]
  106. Watanabe, J.-I., Mochizuki, A., & Horry, Y.
    (2008) Bookisheet: bendable device for browsing content using the metaphor of leafing through the pages. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, 360–369. 10.1145/1409635.1409684
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1409635.1409684 [Google Scholar]
  107. Waycott, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A.
    (2003) Students’ experiences with PDAs for reading course materials. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 71, 30–43. 10.1007/s00779‑002‑0211‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-002-0211-x [Google Scholar]
  108. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E.
    (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. 10.1111/j.1475‑1313.2012.00930.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00930.x [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.24033.men
Loading
Does the reading platform matter?
AILA Review 38, 105 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.24033.men
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.24033.men
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.24033.men
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): digital; eye-tracking; medium; reading; screen; technology

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error