Is There a Neuroscientific Difference Between Reading a Book and Reading a Kindle

Forepart Psychol. 2019; x: 38.

Comparing Comprehension of a Long Text Read in Impress Volume and on Kindle: Where in the Text and When in the Story?

Anne Mangen

¹Norwegian Reading Centre, Academy of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Gérard Olivier

²Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Récits Cultures Et Sociétés (LIRCES EA 3159), Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Dainty, France

Jean-Luc Velay

³Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives (UMR 7192), CNRS and Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France

Received 2018 Sep 20; Accustomed 2019 Jan eight.

Abstract

Digital reading devices such equally Kindle differ from paper books with respect to the kinesthetic and tactile feedback provided to the reader, but the role of these features in reading is rarely studied empirically. This experiment compares reading of a long text on Kindle DX and in print. Fifty participants (24 years onetime) read a 28 page (∼1 h reading fourth dimension) long mystery story on Kindle or in a impress pocket book and completed several tests measuring various levels of reading comprehension: engagement, recall, capacities to locate events in the text and reconstructing the plot of the story. Results showed that on most tests subjects performed identically whatever the reading medium. However, on measures related to chronology and temporality, those who had read in the print pocket volume, performed ameliorate than those who had read on a Kindle. It is ended that, basically comprehension was similar with both media, but, because kinesthetic feedback is less informative with a Kindle, readers were not equally efficient to locate events in the space of the text and hence in the temporality of the story. Nosotros suggest that, to become a correct spatial representation of the text and consequently a coherent temporal arrangement of the story, readers would exist reliant on the sensorimotor cues which are afforded by the manipulation of the book.

Keywords: reading comprehension, kinesthetic feedback, cognitive map, print-book, kindle, long text reading

Introduction

The Digitization of Literary Reading

Overall, in the western earth, reading is increasingly digitized. Due to the popularity of handheld, portable digital devices such as eastward-readers (eastward.thousand., Kindle) and tablets (e.g., iPad), too long-form literary reading is becoming screen- rather than print-bound. This transition invites a number of research questions pertaining to the office of substrate affordances (e.thou., screen displays and paper) on cerebral and emotional aspects of narrative, literary reading.

In hitting means, the move from paper to screen makes axiomatic that reading is a case of homo-technology interaction (Mangen and van der Weel, 2016). In improver to more than normally addressed perceptual and cognitive components of soapbox processing, reading typically entails manual date with a device (e.g., a print pocket book, an due east-reader or a tablet). Dissimilar devices accept different user interfaces and material affordances (Gibson, 1977), and the substrate of newspaper in a print book provides sensorimotor contingencies (O'Regan and Noë, 2001) that differ from those of texts displayed on a screen. Print texts are physically and tangibly face-to-face with the medium, whereas digitized texts are physically separable from their medium. This enables a digital device to shop a big number of texts and other content.

However, we know picayune about the ways in which such seemingly subtle differences may interact with cognitive and experiential aspects of reading. Reading scholars of a theoretical ilk have emphasized how reading is more than multisensory than commonly best-selling: "Smell and sight are relevant senses when it comes to reading [,]" says Naomi Baron, "simply touch may well be the nigh of import" (Businesswoman, 2015, p. 142). Analogously, Mc Laughlin notes how "the feel of the book to the hand, the scent of the paper, the haptic pleasance of manipulating the screen […] reinforce and deepen the habit of reading" (Mc Laughlin, 2015, p. 31). Broadly conceptualized, "haptic" (from Greek haptikos = able to affect) refers to the sense of affect. As such, information technology encompasses both "passive" (cutaneous [tactile]) and "active" (proprioceptive; kinesthetic) sensory processes. In the research literature, terms such as haptic, strength feedback, and kinesthetic are frequently used interchangeably. In this article, kinesthetics volition refer to the combined (passive) sense of touch (e.g., pressure; temperature) and the (active) aspects entailed in proprioception (the sense of the relative position of muscles, joints and tendons) and kinesthesia (the sense of movement). ¹ Questions concerning the role of haptics and kinesthetics in reading rise to prominence with the current digitization, and the increasing employ of e-readers and tablets is an occasion to put such theoretical assumptions to empirical scrutiny.

Reading on Newspaper and Screens

During the past couple of decades, scientists and scholars in reading research have increasingly taken an interest in potential furnishings of technological interfaces on aspects of reading and learning, more generally. A large number of empirical studies have been carried out, comparison reading on computer screens and, more recently, on tablets and smartphones, with reading on paper (see Baron, 2015 for an overview). This inquiry spans a range of disciplines and a diverseness of methodologies, assessing the effects of screen properties on, e.g., perceptual processes (Roschke and Radach, 2016), retention and recollect (Morineau et al., 2005; Kerr and Symons, 2006; Porion et al., 2016), comprehension (Mangen et al., 2013; Margolin et al., 2013; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013; Hermena et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017; Salmerón et al., 2018) and metacognition/calibration (Ackerman and Goldsmith, 2011; Norman and Furnes, 2016; Sidi et al., 2016, 2017). More recently, research has begun to address topics such every bit ergonomics (Köpper et al., 2016), bug of medium materiality (Hou et al., 2017) and interactions betwixt medium and detail text types/genres (Rasmusson, 2014; Vocaliser and Alexander, 2017a). As for effects of medium on reading comprehension, the issue remains somewhat unsettled (see Hermena et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017). Some empirical studies have constitute reading comprehension to be superior on newspaper (Kim and Kim, 2013; Mangen et al., 2013; Rasmusson, 2014), whereas others show no differences betwixt paper and screen (Margolin et al., 2013; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013; Porion et al., 2016). Withal, a recent meta-analysis (Delgado et al., 2018) of 54 experiments published between 2000 and 2017 comparing the reading of comparable texts on paper and screens does find an reward for newspaper both for between-participants and for within-participants studies. The meta-analysis revealed three meaning moderators for this main finding: (i) fourth dimension frame (i.e., the advantage for paper-based reading was stronger in time-constrained reading than in self-paced reading); (ii) text genre: the paper-based reading reward was consistent across studies using informational text or a mix of informational and narrative texts, but there was no divergence for narrative-merely texts; and (three) publication year: reverse to assumptions of "digital natives" becoming better screen readers with increasing screen exposure and experience, the meta-assay institute that the reward of paper-based reading in fact increased from 2000 to 2017 (Delgado et al., 2018).

In a like vein, a systematic literature review of empirical research (Singer and Alexander, 2017b) found that when participants were reading texts for depth of understanding and non solely for gist, print was the more effective processing medium. Moreover, with respect to reader preferences and habits, a contempo large international survey (Mizrachi et al., 2018) with more than than x,000 participants constitute that, for academic reading, a broad majority reported a preference for print, especially when reading longer texts. Interestingly, participants reported that they felt they remembered the textile better and were better able to focus when reading in print, compared to when reading digitally (Mizrachi et al., 2018).

On some other annotation, some studies have revealed a discrepancy between objective and subjective measures. A study (Kretzschmar et al., 2013) combining EEG, eye tracking and questionnaires plant that participants overwhelmingly preferred paper over digital reading, only comprehension accuracy did not differ between media.

Visual and Ergonomic Affordances of Newspaper and Screen Substrates

Screen technologies vary with respect to visual ergonomics. Laptop/reckoner and tablet (LCD) screens emit light and hence are found to crusade eyestrain and visual fatigue (Baccino, 2004; Blehm et al., 2005; Yan et al., 2008). In dissimilarity, due east-readers (e.m., Kindle) are based on electronic ink, a screen substrate specially designed to mimic paper (Siegenthaler et al., 2011). Due to a stable prototype, wider viewing angle, and the fact that they only reflect ambience light rather than emitting calorie-free, eastward-readers are more reader friendly than tablets and computers, particularly for longer texts. A growing trunk of evidence indicates that the readability of east-readers is experienced every bit existence equal to, and occasionally improve than, that of paper (Siegenthaler et al., 2011, 2012; Benedetto et al., 2013). In addition, with screens it is possible to scroll upwardly and downwardly the pages of a book. However, scrolling is known to impede readers' capacity to create an effective mental map of the text (Hou et al., 2017). For these reasons, and unlike earlier studies on narrative reading on paper and screen (e.m., Mangen and Kuiken, 2014; Singer and Alexander, 2017a), we used a Kindle in the present report.

All the same, when reading a long text included in a book, there is more to reading than meets the eye. Indeed, for a long text printed on many pages, reading does non only involve the optics: it also involves the hands. Whereas a text displayed on a Kindle and in a print book may be similar with respect to visual properties (the texts wait identical on paper and on screen), the ii texts differ with respect to the ergonomic affordances of the substrate. Manipulating a printed-book and an e-book is non the same. When reading print text on paper, readers have immediate sensory – kinesthetic and tactile – admission to text sequence, as well as to the entirety of the text. The sensorimotor contingencies of paper gives book readers visual as well as kinesthetic feedback to their progress through a text (Mangen and Kuiken, 2014). To know where they are in a text printed on paper, readers accept at their disposal several cues: they can have a look at the page number (visual cue), but they tin also refer to tactile-kinesthetic cues given by the treatment movements informing about the repartition of the weight of the pages on the left and on the correct of the current page, and consequently on the number of pages already read and on the number of pages still to read. In addition, the folio turning movements might also somehow inform about the number of pages already read. Conversely, screen readers accept but visual information on progress and spatial location (e.g., by page numbers or progress bars).

During holding, manipulation of the objects allows to gather information about them fifty-fifty without the aid of vision (Hatwell et al., 2003; Ittyerah, 2017). Thanks to manipulation movements, we build an internal representation of the spatial characteristics of the objects. Print books are special objects whose size, weight and volume are a direct indication of the length of the text. This is not the instance when reading e-books.

Now, information technology is frequently reported by digital readers that they feel it difficult to take a clear representation on the entirety of the text and to localize a given function of information within the text (east.g., Rose, 2011), and there is some empirical evidence supporting this phenomenon (Mangen and Kuiken, 2014). For this reason, readers of long documents on computer screen often prefer to impress the document (Businesswoman et al., 2017; Mizrachi et al., 2018). For a reader, beingness able to situate where he/she read a given piece of information in the text is important because the relative position of events presented in the space of the text is related to the moment these events took place in the fourth dimension of the story. For certain types of texts, such as texts relying on plot (the unfolding of the story in a clear logical and temporal style), a clear representation of the temporal relationships betwixt the events in a story is crucial to build a coherent situation model sustaining the comprehension of a text. Temporal links between events are generally equivalent to causal connections between these events (usually causes come before their consequences) and causal links between events is one of the components of the situation model (Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978; Kintsch, 1998).

When reading on a digital device, haptic and kinesthetic cues such as these are not available to the reader. When reading on a Kindle, for instance, the reader has access to visual cues only with respect to the spatial location of text segments, and to the temporal progression of reading. Therefore, the main hypothesis of this study was that reading a relatively long, linear text on a Kindle generates difficulties to localize relevant events inside the space of the text and within the time of the story.

Nevertheless, reading experiments using long narrative texts every bit stimuli is scarce. In what may accept been the commencement experiment to compare narrative engagement when reading a "real," somewhat longer (ca. 2700 words) narrative text on iPad and on paper, Mangen and Kuiken (2014) found that the paper group reported a better grasp of text length and of their location in the text than the iPad grouping. Interestingly, however, they found no correlation between this "sense of dislocation" with readers' reported sense of narrative engagement, nor did the groups differ on cognitive measures (Mangen and Kuiken, 2014).

The present study elaborates Mangen and Kuiken's study by (i) using a Kindle DX instead of an iPad; (ii) using a longer, literary text in its entirety; and (iii) focusing on potential furnishings of the Kindle's lack of, specifically, tactile feedback on spatial location and progress. In addition, in the present study the stimulus text in both conditions is matched for surface dimensions. Whereas Mangen and Kuiken (2014) opted for using the Kindle app for iPad to ensure comparable reader friendliness across atmospheric condition, we modeled the impress stimulus on the surface measures of the Kindle, and so that page layout, margin sizes, sentence number and length, and number of pages were identical in Kindle and in print. This matching was done in order to avoid visual discrepancies as a potential confound, and was of import in light of our try at disentangling potential effects due to visual ergonomics on the one paw, and furnishings due to haptics and kinesthetics on the other. We combined cerebral measures of recall and comprehension with subjective measures assessing experiential aspects of reading a mystery curt story on Kindle and in a impress pocket book. Specifically, we combined give-and-take- and sentence recognition tasks, factual recall measures and assessment of readers' power to reconstruct spatial and temporal aspects of the text with rating scales assessing aspects of readers' date.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Fifty immature adults (mean age 24 ± three.ix; 32 females) participated in the experiment. All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision. They signed a written and informed consent after the process was fully explained and were paid for participation. Two participants with learning difficulties were discarded prior to the experiment and replaced by two new subjects. Prior to the reading session, participants completed a questionnaire request near their report level, reading habits, and familiarity with e-readers. Upon asking participants about their experience with Kindle (or like device) reading, it was found that some were casual users of e-books. But 2 participants amongst 50 were expert Kindle readers who did all their reading, including literary reading, on their own Kindle. Groups were matched at best with respect to demographic variables (age, gender, instruction) and reading habits (reading frequency). Considering all these criteria, these two participants were assigned to the Kindle group. Therefore, they read on their preferred device merely without unbalancing the ii groups regarding e-reader familiarity (encounter Table 1). Later the reading session, we checked with the participants if they had read the story earlier. This was non the case for any of them. The study had prior approval past the Ideals Committee of the Aix-Marseille University (N° RCB 2010-A00155-34) and the CNRS. Participants signed a written informed consent form prior to the study. They were fully debriefed following their participation.

Table one

Descriptive statistics: demographics and reading habits.

Medium	Sample	Age	Number of years at university	Reading frequencya	E-reader familiarityb
Print	N = 25 (16 females); four left-handed	23.six ± iii.8 years	4.2 ± 2.0	ii.vi ± 1.0	0.three ± 0.vii
Kindle	North = 25 (xvi females); 5 left-handed	23.eight ± 4.1 years	iv.two ± ii.1	ii.4 ± 1.2	0.four ± 0.nine

Materials

Stimulus

The stimulus was a 28-page (virtually 10,800 words) mystery story by Elizabeth George, titled Lusting for Jenny, Inverted. The text appears in a collection of brusque stories (George, 2010). Lusting for Jenny, Inverted is a quite conventional mystery story, a "clever tale of lust, greed and false pretenses" (Goodstein, 2010). Information technology tells the story of an older woman, Jenny, who is called to be the executrix of her aunt's volition. Jenny feels unfulfilled with her comfortable but boring housewife life in Long Beach, California. When she he comes to the isolated Washington land isle customs to settle her aunt'due south manor, she meets a charming young man who seems to offer her romance and excitement. They embark on an affair that seems to promise complete fulfillment of all of Jenny'south desires, only things get very complicated when a very valuable stamp collection is discovered as office of the estate. The story is plot-based, like shooting fish in a barrel to read and progresses in a linear fashion, without any meaning analepses (flashbacks) or prolepses (foreshadowing) (Genette, 1983).

Media Dimensions (Impress Book and Kindle)

For the print volume condition, the 28 pages of the text appeared in a 250-page long dummy pocket volume (see Figure one). Ten blank pages preceded the get-go folio of the story, and all pages following the end of the story, were blank. The text was printed recto-verso, but like in a "real" book. The pocketbook was 20.0 cm in height, 14.0 cm in width and 1.eight cm thick. Its weight was 328 1000. Neat methodological intendance was taken to ensure similarity of the visual ergonomics of both reading display. The same pdf file was used to create both the impress and the due east-book. The surface dimensions of each page (font size, sentence length, size of line spacing and margins, letters size) were defined to match exactly those of the screen of the Kindle. In addition, the electronic ink engineering science used in the Kindle allows long-form reading without visual fatigue which could have a detrimental effect on reading.

The print pocket book and the Kindle. The left-hand folio in the print book corresponds to the folio displayed on the Kindle.

The Kindle was a Kindle DX, measuring 26.5 cm in meridian, 18.0 cm in width and 0.5 cm thick. The weight was 540 g. The screen dimensions were: 20.0 cm × 14.0 cm (see Figure ane). The reader turned the page by clicking on ii buttons on the right side, marked by color-codes and "forward" and "back" labels. In order to ensure maximum comparability with the impress book, all other Kindle affordances were disabled (e.g., the keyboard; search options; bookmarking). Before reading, the participant was briefly shown how to turn the pages.

We were particularly interested in potential changes in the participants' power to locate events in the text. To avoid that the participants referred to the folio numbers to see how many pages they had read, nosotros stripped the texts in both conditions for page numbering and we concealed the progress bar of the Kindle.

Tasks and Procedure

Participants were explained that they participated to an experiment comparing paper and e-book reading and that they have been assigned to one of the reading groups. They were not informed of the verbal purpose of the experiment, just only that they will have to read a short story and that they will be asked to answer some questions afterward their reading. They were not told about the content of the questions. The session took place in a quiet room, and the participant sat in a comfortable chair equipped with armrests. The experimenter was seated in the reverse corner of the room, facing away from the participant. Participants were handed the book opened on the showtime page and asked to start reading. When the participants had finished reading, the experimenter registered the bodily reading time and the participants were asked to guess the duration of their reading (number of minutes). Although it is not a common assessment in reading experiments, we used the estimated reading time every bit an indirect index of how far the readers were transported in the story: the longer the estimated fourth dimension, the lesser the transportation of the reader and vice-versa. Then, the participants completed the tests in the following order:

• simple -

  Transportation and Engagement Scale: a shortened, 33-detail measure assessing aspects of readers' sense of transportation, narrative date and resistance to distraction, largely adjusted from Busselle and Bilandzic's Narrative Date Scale (Busselle and Bilandzic, 2009) ² . This scale has been used extensively in experiments assessing readers' emotional date in narrative fictions (see e.g., Kuijpers et al., 2014).

Assessments of readers' comprehension were inspired past Van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) model of comprehension, defining comprehension as an effect of the interaction of features of the text and the readers' knowledge. Van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) model distinguishes between comprehension at text base of operations level (corresponding to the propositional representation of the text at micro- and macro-levels), and the situation model (referring to the representation of the text which is integrated with readers' prior noesis), accommodating a nuanced cess of readers' mental representations of different textual features at several levels In the nowadays experiment, brusque-term recall, text-based (surface) level representation were assessed by recognition tasks, whereas situation model representation was assessed with measures borer into readers' reconstruction of the story Short term retentivity of words and sentences denotes the attention readers paid to the text during reading and the text comprehension.

• unproblematic -

  The Word Recognition Chore consisted of 90 words. Participants were asked "Was this give-and-take present in the text you lot just read?" on a computer screen and the response was given using the arrow keys of the keyboard.

• simple -

  The Judgement Recognition Task contained 40 sentences. Participants were asked "Was this sentence nowadays in the texts you merely read?" with the procedure being same as for the word recognition test.

Participants' factual recall was assessed with a Content Recall Questionnaire comprising 64 multiple-selection items in 5 categories: (i) Characters: 23 questions near the story characters, their physical characteristics, personality features, relationships between characters (sample item: "How one-time was Jenny when she had her first child?"); (two) geographical setting: 9 questions virtually the locations of the story, assessing readers' recollection of spatial content (sample detail: "What is the proper name of the isle where the story takes place?"); (3) key locations: ix questions virtually key locations in the story (sample item: "In which room in the cottage was Marion Mance institute expressionless?"); (iv): objects: 6 questions about key objects in the story (sample item: "What is the estimated value of the 'inverted Jenny' stamp?"); and (v) time and temporality: seven questions assessing readers' recollection of temporal dimensions of the story, due east.chiliad., time lapse between events, chronology and duration of events (sample item: "For how long do Ian and Jenny stay at Blackberry indicate before the owners come up back?"). Participants gave their response orally, and the examiner registered the response.

• simple -

  "Where in the text?": in a measure inspired by the Rothkopf (1971). Experiment we asked participants to locate sixteen sentence-length condensations of key events to their correct identify in the text: the start (pages one–9), 2d (pages 10–18), or third office (pages 19–28) (sample item: "When did Ian discover the value of the 'Inverted Jenny' stamp?"). The question format sentences were presented, ane-by-one, on the screen and the participant gave her response orally. The examiner registered the response.

• simple -

  Plot Reconstruction Task: 14 sentence-length condensations of key events of the story were written on laminated pieces of paper and were presented in a shuffled society to the participant. Participants were asked to sort them in the correct lodge, in accordance with the plot. Upon completion of the task, the resulting order was registered by the experimenter.

Statistical Analysis

In all tests, information from both groups were compared using independent samples t-tests, except for the factual think questionnaire and the 'where in the text?' test for which the data were submitted to a ii-style ANOVA with repeated measures.

Results

Objective and Subjective Measures of Reading Time

Results are presented in Tabular array two. There was no departure betwixt reading media with respect to objective reading fourth dimension [58 min in average, corresponding to a reading speed of 186 words per minute (wpm), t(48) = 0.34, ns], and reading time estimates were almost identical across groups [fifty min, t(48) = 0.06, ns].

Table 2

Mean (SD) actual and estimated reading times with both reading medium.

Medium	Actual reading time	Estimated reading time
Print	59 (17)	50 (25)
Kindle	57 (20)	50 (18)

Transportation and Engagement Scale

For each participant, responses were summarized for all 33 items of the calibration. Results showed no significant betwixt-group divergence betwixt 'impress' and 'kindle' groups scores [140 and 149 respectively; t(48) = 0.2, ns].

Word Recognition Task

The mean number of right responses in this test was 59.8 (±7.five) and 61.ii (±6.9) with the print book and kindle respectively. The difference was non pregnant [t(48) = 0.70, ns].

Judgement Recognition Chore

The mean number of right responses in this examination was 27.5 (±four.4) and 26.5 (±4.6) with the print book and kindle respectively. The difference was not significant [t(48) = 0.76, ns].

Factual Recall Questionnaire

Results are presented in Table 3. Equally the number of questions differed beyond sentences categories, nosotros calculated the percentage of right responses in each category past dividing the number of correct responses by the number of questions in the category. Then, the percentages were arc sinus transformed to be analyzed by ways of a two-fashion ANOVA with category as a within-subject factor and reading medium (print vs. Kindle) as between-subjects factor. The mean number of correct responses was 63.5 and threescore.5% for print and e-book respectively [F(i,48) < 1, ns]. The number of correct responses differed as a role of question category [F(4,192) = thirteen.2, p < 0.001, η² = 0.22]. Because we were particularly interested in the "time and temporality" questions nosotros fabricated a specific planned comparison between the two reading media in this category which revealed a statistically significant difference [F(1,48) = iv.i, p < 0.05, η² = 0.08].

Table 3

Factual Recall Questionnaire: Charge per unit of right responses (%).

Reading medium	Characters	Geographical setting	Key locations	Objects	Time and temporality
Print	76.iv	60.0	62.5	61.6	57.1
Kindle	72.two	59.4	57.i	69.6	44.0

'Where in the Text?' Measure out

In that location was no significant deviation betwixt the 2 reading media [F(i,48) = one.91, ns]. The 'part of the text' factor was close to pregnant [F(2,96) = 2.97, p < 0.057]. Indicative of a well-known recency effect (Murdock, 1962; Gershberg and Shimamura, 1994), participants scored better for questions concerning the concluding tertiary of the text, compared to the outset and 2d part (Figure 2). Although this effect may seem larger in the Kindle group, the 'medium' by 'role of text' interaction was non meaning [F(2,96) = 1.1, ns). However, the medium comparison for the first part only revealed a pregnant event (p < 0.05, η² = 0.06). In other words, the print book readers gave more right responses than the Kindle readers for questions concerning the first part of the text.

Where in the text: rate of correct responses (%).

Plot Reconstruction Task

To measure the distance between the correct arrangement of events according to the plot, and the arrangement proposed past the participant, we used the Kendall's tau rank distance (Kendall, 1938, 1962), a statistical mensurate that corresponds to the number of pairwise disagreements between two ranking lists. The more than the ranking list given by the participant is far from the exact listing, the larger the distance Kendall is ⁱⁱⁱ . The mean distance was 4.8 for the 'print' group and 7.8 for the 'Kindle' group, and a t-test showed that the between-group difference was statistically significant [t(48) = 2.03, p < 0.05; η² = 0.08], meaning that the impress group performed better (with a shorter distance from the right social club) than the Kindle group on this measure (Figure 3).

Plot reconstruction job: distance from correct gild.

Correlation Between 'Where in the Text?' and Plot Reconstruction Tests

Because both tests were supposed to assess the capacity to localize events in the space of the text and to supplant events of the story in the correct order, we supposed that the functioning in both tests would exist somehow linked. Therefore, we made a regression assay of the charge per unit of correct responses in the 'where in the text?' examination and the Kendall distance in the 'plot reconstruction exam across all subjects (both reading media confounded). This analysis revealed a significant correlation between both variables [R = -0.356, F _(1,48) = six.98, p < 0.02]. The correlation was negative, therefore the greater the number of correct responses given in the 'where in text?' test, the smaller the distance between the exact order of the ranking list and the list reconstructed by the participant.

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to assess the effect of fabric affordances of a Kindle on cognitive aspects of narrative reading. More specifically, nosotros tested whether the Kindle's lack of kinesthetic and tactile feedback on the distribution and location of text elements may negatively touch aspects of readers' cognitive reconstruction of a narrative reading, in detail, with respect to its temporal and chronological dimension.

The question of the textile affordances of the reading support has never been really explored and in order to accost this question specifically, we made some methodological choices, the most of import beingness the length of the text to read. Manifestly, if the kinesthetic feedback generated by the book manipulation matters, information technology can be only during long-grade reading. Therefore, in this experiment we decided to have adult readers to read a long text (ten,800 words), requiring approximately 1 h reading and hence a substantial manipulation of the book. Such a long reading fourth dimension is beyond those normally required in experiments devoted to reading comprehension. Comprehension of long texts involves short- and long-term memory of the text and building a coherent situation model representation, a major characteristic of which is its global organization into main points and subordinate points (Kintsch, 1998). This state of affairs model might depend partly on a cognitive map, a spatial representation, of the text (Payne and Reader, 2006; Li et al., 2013; Hou et al., 2017) that the readers automatically build during reading and which might be less precise when reading an e-book equally compared to a impress book.

The results showed that, on nearly of the measures, there were no differences between the Kindle and the print pocket book. This is in line with some contempo reviews of reading comprehension on paper and screen (Hermena et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017). This was peculiarly the case concerning the reading fourth dimension which has been a affair of controversies in the literature, with some authors reporting a slower reading with tablets and others no departure. In the nowadays study, the reading time did not differ co-ordinate to the blazon of reading support. Abreast the actual reading fourth dimension, the level of engagement of the reader in the reading was assessed by a questionnaire, and more than indirectly, by the subjective reading time. Neither of these measures yielded differences betwixt the reading media, thus nosotros may presume that readers' emotional engagement were roughly the aforementioned with both types of books. Furthermore, readers' score on the discussion- and judgement-recognition tests did non differ in the ii atmospheric condition, suggesting that surface reading and attention paid to the text did non differ betwixt the impress book and the e-book. Finally, in the recall questionnaire, about of the questions virtually the text content did not yield any differences. To conclude, well-nigh of the measures we used to assess the text comprehension did not show any differences between print- and e-volume.

Withal, some differences were observed between the media regarding tasks borer into readers' ability to correctly reconstruct temporal and chronological aspects of the text. In the recall questionnaire, on measures related to time and temporality, those who had read in the print pocket volume, performed better than those who had read on a Kindle. The 'where in the text?' test, which was specifically devoted to assessing the capacity of the readers to localize the events in the text, besides yielded results going in the same management: paper readers were better at localizing the events than the Kindle readers when the events were the furthest from the end of the book (or at the commencement of the story). Hence, the mental representation of the part of the text corresponding to the reading events which were the most remote in time (at the fourth dimension of the task), was stronger for those who had read on newspaper than for those who had read on Kindle. Finally, the plot reconstruction examination, which directly assessed the mental representation of the chronology of the story, indicated that print volume readers had a more coherent state of affairs model than due east-book readers.

How may these differences betwixt the two reading supports exist interpreted? First, it is worth emphasizing here that memory of the text per se was not affected by medium. The discussion and sentence recognition tests and the majority of the recall questions yielded the same results in both reading media. Therefore, the differences on some of the measures cannot exist related to differences in memory in the 2 media, nor can they be explained past differences in attention paid to the text during reading. If either of these had been the example, one would have expected the Kindle group to accept performed differently on all the tests.

We suggest that these differences could exist interpreted as an indication that the sensorimotor assessment of the device may be related to certain aspects of cognitive processing and, moreover, that these aspects are specifically related to reading longer linear texts. The text used in the present experiment was ane in which the temporal unfolding of events in the story corresponded closely with their spatial localization in the text (e.g., no major flashbacks) then that there was a correspondence between "where in the text" and "when in the story" events occur. This is shown past the meaning correlation observed between both tests results. In other words, the better the readers were able to locate events in the infinite of the text, the amend their representation of the chronology of the story was. In this respect, the fixity of a text presented on the physical substrate of paper provides material placeholders, functioning to off-load cognitive processes during reading. Such off-loading may be of particular importance when reading certain kinds of texts – for instance, long narrative texts in which the distribution of elements (e.g., story events and characters interactions) co-ordinate to the unfolding of a narrative (i.e., the plot) matters. On the other hand, the intangibility of a text on a Kindle and lack of fixed cues – "material anchors" (Schilhab, 2017) – to length and spatiotemporal extension of the text may likewise contribute to a loss of orientation with respect to readers' assessment of the temporal relations between events in the text. The lack of fixity (and hence less informative tactile feedback) of the text displayed on the Kindle may take left readers less confident nigh where they are in the text corpus (volume), and this lack of confidence may have had a negative result on their ability to build a correct representation of the story. Of related relevance, enquiry has shown that having a adept mental representation of the spatial representation or layout of the text supports reading comprehension (Baccino and Pynte, 1994; Cataldo and Oakhill, 2000; Hou et al., 2017). Somehow, the material anchors of paper seem to accept provided amend scaffolding for aspects of the mental reconstruction than the due east-ink display of the Kindle. Withal, any conclusive interpretation of these results is challenged past the fact that establishing causality is linked to the processing of order events, hence, inferior ordering of events could accept been expected to negatively affected readers' mental construction of causality, in turn resulting in poorer overall comprehension. This was not the case in the nowadays experiment, every bit readers in both atmospheric condition performed equally well on the comprehension measures. Instead, the differences observed may be more closely related to the participants' ability to correctly locate unmarried events in time, rather than their power to reconstruct the gild of events per se, on a global level. Time to come research should be designed to enable more precise assessments of the means in which the affordances of reading substrates – screen displays and paper – may differently bear upon singled-out, simply closely related, aspects of mental reconstruction of chronology and temporality during possibly especially long-form reading. In this job, developing improved measures for inter-events associations is pivotal.

Hou et al. (2017) distinguished two mechanisms to explicate why reading on a digital support versus on paper might result in unlike reading outcomes. The first mechanism contends that, because they lack fixed visual anchors, screens make information technology difficult for readers to construct an effective spatial representation of the text and, in plow, readers are impaired in their capacity to locate pieces of information in text. The second mechanism they evoked is concerned with the sensorimotor engagement with the paper or digital texts, which was highlighted in the present experiment. We retrieve that these ii mechanisms are in fact the 2 sides of the aforementioned money: both mechanisms could be involved simultaneously and differently depending on the visual display of the screen and the length of the text. Visual cues, informing virtually spatial relationships betwixt parts of the text inside a folio, and sensorimotor cues furnished by the book handling and informing about spatial relationships betwixt parts of the text disseminated amidst pages of the book, likely participate to the construction of the cerebral map of the text. In the present study, since we compared two books with visually identical pages, we focused more than on the 2nd aspect of reading.

Another aspect to consider which may help explain the poorer performance on reconstruction of chronology and temporality on a Kindle compared to paper, may be related to the "recursive dimension" of print (see due east.one thousand., Wolf, 2018). When reading lengthy texts, mayhap in detail narratives and novels, we occasionally need to backtrack to remind ourselves of, for instance, relations between characters, their names, or how events were interconnected. When nosotros read in a print book, we tin can hands go dorsum and check whenever needed, and nosotros have immediate access to earlier pages whether they are five or fifty pages before the one folio nosotros're currently reading. Evidently, we tin can as well become back on a Kindle, but backtracking on a digital device is non as quick and effortless as with a paper book. Moreover, the reader'due south task of locating information on earlier pages, spatially and temporally, is made more challenging with the lack of materiality of a digital text – whether on a Kindle or on an iPad. It may be that such a sense of added cognitive (and sensorimotor) effort discourages readers from going back to re-read earlier parts of a text when reading on a digital device, with a potential event being a sub-optimal mental representation of spatiotemporal relations between events and/or characters. Equally this is the showtime experiment to compare the reading of a long, linear text on paper and screen, we recommend that future studies are designed to address this result more specifically and in-depth. This could be done by, for case, using text manipulations that tin exist assumed to trigger back-tracking and re-reading, for instance by systematically changing information in a way that will require updates in readers' situation model (eastward.chiliad., graphic symbol names or goals; event locations; causal or temporal relationships between events). Nosotros may hardly conclude that reading comprehension was afflicted with due east-book considering about of the tests did not reveal differences betwixt impress and east-book. Yet, reading on an e-book seems to give rise to a less correct representation of the chronology of the events occurring in the story. Because temporal and causal links between events are usually closely connected, the understanding of the story might be somehow unlike in print and eastward-book. This point needs to be studied more precisely with longer texts and more than specific measures.

Although steps were taken to ensure a more than ecologically valid experimental setting than is oft the case, it can be discussed whether the masking of folio numbers (in both books) and also hiding the progress bar on the Kindle actually introduced an artifact that could somehow take influenced the results. Since nosotros were primarily interested in assessing whether the difference in sensorimotor cues between a newspaper-based and a screen-based book made a difference for aspects of comprehension, we decided to strip both texts of whatsoever visual cues to text length. Based on the results of the nowadays experiment, nosotros can only conclude that sensorimotor cues play a function when reading a impress book, whereas they are lacking when reading an e-book. The question remains whether visual cues, such as the progress bar on a Kindle, are equally efficient equally sensorimotor cues. Therefore, hereafter studies comparing long-course reading on paper and screen should include page numbers and/or other indicators of text localization, to assess whether such visual aids differently support mental reconstruction on paper and screen, equally compared to sensorimotor cues. An additional limitation of the nowadays study is that most of the participants were novices with respect to reading on a Kindle, and it tin be claimed that they were not very gorging readers of literature. To determine the role of medium expertise and preferences, and to empirically assess the assumptions underlying claims about and so-called "digital natives," future studies should compare reading different kinds of texts on an due east-reader and on paper among expert Kindle (and similar device) readers. It would be interesting to also replicate this finding with participants who are more than avid literary readers.

The stimulus in this experiment was a plot-based mystery story, to a large extent based on a chronological ordering of actions and events, and so that the occurrence of an event in the story content – the "when in the story" – is oftentimes closely matched to the spatial location of the text passage in the book – the "where in the text." While information technology is not implausible that like results tin can be found by using other types of linear, chronologically structured texts (east.g., narratively presented historical accounts in textbooks), replications of the present study are needed, using unlike types and genres of texts (eastward.chiliad., literary texts that are less plot-based; expository texts with low degree of narrativity). It may be that the ergonomic and visual affordances of unlike screen media may differently affect cerebral aspects of reading, depending on a number of variables relating to text (e.k., literary vs. non-literary; caste of narrativity; length; genre; structure/layout; complication) as well every bit reader characteristics (e.g., medium/technology expertise and preference). The increasing popularity of the Bring-Your-Own-Device solution (run into, e.g., Vocal, 2014) is testimony to the fact that for instance device ownership may be a significant factor in this equation.

Futurity research should too address the affective and emotional aspects of reading. Beyond applying an adjusted version of Busselle and Bilandzic's (2009) Narrative Date Scale, we did not include any measures of emotional and affective aspects. Given that the stimulus text is a mystery story by an established writer, this may seem an unfortunate omission. Moreover, applied post hoc, rating scales are also liable to distortion and tin can more accurately be said to measure readers' verbalized memory of what they may have felt at the time of reading (run across e.grand., Jacobs, 2016a,b). Ideally, offline measures of emotional aspects of reading should exist complemented by online measures that are less prone to such distortions. Specifically, ratings and other verbal responses could be fruitfully complemented with online, indirect, behavioral measures such as middle tracking or electrodermal activeness, in order to shed more light on the function of affective and emotional processes in perhaps specially long-form, literary reading. The development of sophisticated interdisciplinary and multi-methodological frameworks such as the Neurocognitive Poetics Model (Jacobs, 2015) is especially promising in this respect, applying a combination of measures at neural, behavioral and phenomenological levels in the study of literary – poetic as well every bit prose – textual cloth (see as well Jacobs and Willems, 2018). Overall, we know too little about the ways in which digitization may affect emotional and motivational aspects of reading, and empirical research addressing such questions is much needed (meet Kaakinen et al., 2018). Every bit noted by Willems and Jacobs (2016), using literary texts as stimuli is, in this regard, a rich and largely untapped potential.

Limitations as the in a higher place notwithstanding, it seems safe to conclude that digitization brings with it the demand to update existing models of reading in general, and of reading comprehension, in particular. Importantly, models should exist elaborated and refined to business relationship for the role of various features of media (e.yard., print books, laptops, tablets, and due east-readers) and their substrates (eastward.thou., paper, electronic ink screens, LCD screens) on the reading of diverse types of texts, for different purposes. Mangen and van der Weel (2016) propose such an integrative, transdisciplinary model, accounting for the psychological, ergonomic, technological, social, cultural and evolutionary aspects of reading and how these are existence affected by digitization. An exploratory model, it is intended to point to blanks in our noesis of the differences betwixt paper and screen reading, hence pointing out directions for futurity empirical research. The findings of the present experiment indicate that one salient textual parameter to pursue in future enquiry comparing paper and screen reading, is text length and the ways in which a text may prompt re-reading, at diverse levels and for various reasons.

Decision

Although it should exist considered largely exploratory, the written report adds to a growing body of evidence indicating that paper and screen reading may differ also in cases of linear, narrative reading where in that location are no hyperlinks to click on or multimedia content to process. Moreover, information technology illustrates the value of studying parameters non usually addressed in reading research, such as haptic and tactile feedback. In the process toward more ecologically valid experiments in reading research, the study too contributes valuable insights into aspects of reading comprehension when the text is substantially longer than what is typical in empirical reading enquiry of any disciplinary orientation.

Writer Contributions

AM and J-LV conceived and designed the experiments. Become and J-LV performed the experiments. J-LV analyzed the data. AM and J-LV wrote the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Research supported by grants ANR-16-CONV-0002 (ILCB), ANR-11-LABX-0036 (BLRI) and the Excellence Initiative of Aix- Marseille Academy (A^∗MIDEX).

Footnotes

¹Run into, for instance, Klatzky and Lederman (1988), Lederman and Klatzky (1998), and Klatzky and Lederman (2002) for more than in-depth exploration of these closely related phenomena.

²Cronbach'due south alpha for the original Narrative Appointment Calibration was 0.eighty (run across Table three in Busselle and Bilandzic, 2009).

³Kendall tau distance is equivalent to the number of swaps required to place one list in the aforementioned order as the other list. If both classifications are identical, the Kendall tau distance = 0; if both classifications are totally in opposite, the Kendall tau distance = Northward (N-1) / 2 (in this case North = 14), resulting in a maximum altitude of 91. The intermediate arrangements have a altitude from the right plot arrangement ranging from 0 to 91.

References

• Ackerman R., Goldsmith Thousand. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17 eighteen–32. 10.1037/a0022086 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Baccino T. (2004). La Lecture Electronique. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble. [Google Scholar]
• Baccino T., Pynte J. (1994). Spatial coding and soapbox models during text reading. Lang. Cogn. Procedure. 9 143–155. 10.1080/01690969408402114 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Businesswoman N. S. (2015). Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
• Baron N. South., Calixte R. M., Havewala M. (2017). The persistence of print amidst university students: an exploratory study. Telematics Informatics 34 590–604. 10.1016/j.tele.2016.xi.008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Benedetto S., Drai-Zerbib V., Pedrotti M., Tissier Chiliad., Baccino T. (2013). E-Readers and visual fatigue. PLoS One 8:e83676. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083676 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Blehm C., Vishnu S., Khattak A., Mitra Due south., Yee R. W. (2005). Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv. Ophthalmol. 50 253–262. ten.1016/j.survophthal.2005.02.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Busselle R., Bilandzic H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychol. 12 321–347. 10.1080/15213260903287259 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cataldo M. G., Oakhill J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text. J. Educ. Psychol. 92 791–799. ten.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Delgado P., Vargas C., Ackerman R., Salmerón 50. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: a meta-assay on the furnishings of reading media on reading comprehension. Educ. Res. Rev. 25 23–38. 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Genette G. (1983). Narrative Soapbox: An Essay in Method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]
• George Eastward. (2010). "Lusting for jenny, inverted," in Two of the Deadliest , ed. George East. (New York, NY: HarperCollins; ), 227–254. [Google Scholar]
• Gershberg F. B., Shimamura A. P. (1994). Series position furnishings in implicit and explicit tests of memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20 1370–1378. 10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1370 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gibson J. J. (1977). "The theory of affordances," in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology , eds Shaw R., Bransford J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; ), 67–82. [Google Scholar]
• Goodstein J. (2010). Book Review: Ii of the Deadliest. Available at: http://blogcritics.org/book-review-two-of-the-deadliest/ [accessed May thirty, 2017]. [Google Scholar]
• Hatwell Y., Streri A., Gentaz E. (eds) (2003). Touching for Knowing. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Compagny; 10.1075/aicr.53 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hermena Due east. W., Sheen Chiliad., AlJassmi Chiliad., AlFalasi M., AlMatroushi M., Jordan T. R. (2017). Reading rate and comprehension for text presented on tablet and paper: evidence from arabic. Front. Psychol. 8:257. x.3389/fpsyg.2017.00257 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hou J., Rashid J., Lee K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Comput. Hum. Behav. 67 84–94. ten.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ittyerah Thou. (2017). Emerging trends in the multimodal nature of cognition: impact and handedness. Front. Psychol. viii:844. x.3389/fpsyg.2017.00844 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jacobs A. M. (2015). Neurocognitive poetics: methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Front. Hum. Neurosci. ix:186. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jacobs A. G. (2016a). The scientific study of literary experience and neuro-behavioral responses to literature. Sci. Study Lit. 6 164–174. 10.1075/ssol.vi.1.08jac [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jacobs A. Thousand. (2016b). The scientific study of literary experience: sampling the country of the fine art. Sci. Study Lit. v 139–170. x.1075/ssol.v.2.01jac [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jacobs A. M., Willems R. M. (2018). The fictive brain: neurocognitive correlates of engagement in literature. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 22 147–160. 10.1037/gpr0000106 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kaakinen J., Papp-Zipernovszky O., Werlen E., Castells N., Bergamin P., Baccino T., et al. (2018). "Emotional and motivational aspects of digital reading," in Learning to Read in a Digital World , eds Barzillai Thou., Thomson J. M., Schroeder S., Van den Broek P. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins; ), 141–164. 10.1075/swll.17.06kaa [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kendall Thou. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30 81–93. 10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kendall 1000. G. (1962). Rank Correlation Methods , tertiary Edn. New York, NY: Hafner Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
• Kerr M. A., Symons S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: effects on children's reading of advisory material. Read. Writ. xix 1–19. 10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kim H., Kim J. (2013). Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: teenagers' reading performance. Int. J. Res. Stud. Educ. Technol. 2 xv–24. 10.5861/ijrset.2012.170 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kintsch W. (1998). Comprehension: A Prototype for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
• Kintsch West., van Dijk T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol. Rev. 85 363–395. ten.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Klatzky R. L., Lederman South. J. (1988). "The intelligent paw," in Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 21 ed. Bower 1000. (San Diego, CA: Bookish Press; ), 121–151. [Google Scholar]
• Klatzky R. Fifty., Lederman S. J. (2002). "Bear on," in Handbook of Psychology: Experimental Psychology Vol. 4 ed. Weiner I. B. (New York, NY: Wiley; ), 147–176. [Google Scholar]
• Köpper M., Mayr S., Buchner A. (2016). Reading from figurer screen versus reading from paper: does it yet make a difference? Ergonomics 1–18. ten.1080/00140139.2015.1100757 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kretzschmar F., Pleimling D., Hosemann J., Füssel Southward., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky Chiliad. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking testify from the reading of books and digital media. PLoS One 8:e56178. 10.1371/periodical.pone.0056178 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kuijpers 1000. M., Hakemulder F., Tan East. Due south., Doicaru Yard. M. (2014). Exploring arresting reading experiences. Sci. Report Lit. four 89–122. 10.1075/ssol.iv.ane.05kui [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lederman S. J., Klatzky R. L. (1998). "The paw as perceptual organization," in The Psychology of the Hand , ed. Connolly One thousand. J. (London: McKeith Press.), sixteen–35. [Google Scholar]
• Li L., Chen G., Yang Southward. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to ameliorate e-volume reading and navigation. Comput. Educ. 60 32–39. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mangen A., Kuiken D. (2014). Lost in the iPad: narrative appointment on paper and tablet. Sci. Study Lit. 4 150–177. ten.1075/ssol.four.2.02man [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mangen A., van der Weel A. (2016). The evolution of reading in the age of digitisation: an integrative framework for reading research. Literacy 50 116–124. ten.1111/lit.12086 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mangen A., Walgermo B. R., Brønnick Chiliad. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screens: effects on reading comprehension. Int. J. Educ. Res. 58 61–68. ten.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Margolin S. J., Driscoll C., Toland Grand. J., Kegler J. L. (2013). Eastward-readers, figurer screens, or paper: does reading comprehension modify across media platforms? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 27 512–519. 10.1002/acp.2930 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mc Laughlin T. (2015). Reading and the Body: The Physical Exercise of Reading. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; ten.1007/978-i-137-52289-iv [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mizrachi D., Salaz A. G., Kurbanoglu S., Boustany J. (2018). Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: a comparative survey analysis. PLoS I 13:e0197444. 10.1371/journal.pone.0197444 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Morineau T., Blanche C., Tobin 50., Gueguen N. (2005). The emergence of the contextual office of the e-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and functional analysis. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62 329–348. ten.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.10.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Murdock B. B., Jr. (1962). The serial position outcome of free recollect. J. Exp. Psychol. 64 482–488. 10.1037/h0045106 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Norman Due east., Furnes B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media? Comput. Hum. Behav. 54 301–309. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.043 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• O'Regan J. Chiliad., Noë A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behav. Encephalon Sci. 24 939–973. 10.1017/S0140525X01000115 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Payne South., Reader W. (2006). Amalgam structure maps of multiple on-line texts. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64 461–474. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Porion A., Aparicio X., Megalakaki O., Robert A., Baccino T. (2016). The bear on of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54 569–576. x.1016/j.chb.2015.08.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rasmusson M. (2014). Reading paper – reading screen. Nord. Stud. Educ. 35 3–19. [Google Scholar]
• Rockinson-Szapkiw A. J., Courduff J., Carter K., Bennett D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: a comparing report on the influence of university students' learning. Comput. Educ. 63 259–266. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.eleven.022 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Roschke Yard., Radach R. (2016). "Perception, reading, and digital media," in The Cognitive Development of Reading and Reading Comprehension , ed. Connor C. M. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 33–52. [Google Scholar]
• Rose E. (2011). The phenomenology of on-screen reading: University students' lived experience of digitised text. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 42 515–526. x.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01043.ten [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rothkopf Eastward. Z. (1971). Incidental memory for location of information in text. J. Verbal Acquire. Verbal Behav. 10 608–613. 10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80066-X [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Salmerón L., Strømsø H., Kammerer Y., Stadtler M., van den Broek P. (2018). "Comprehension processes in digital reading," in Learning to Read in a Digital Earth , eds Barzillai One thousand., Thomson J. Yard., Schroeder S., van den Broek P. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Visitor; ), 91–120. x.1075/swll.17.04sal [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Schilhab T. (2017). Derived Embodiment in Abstract Language. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing; 10.1007/978-3-319-56056-4 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sidi Y., Ophir Y., Ackerman R. (2016). Generalizing screen inferiority-does the medium, screen versus paper, affect functioning even with brief tasks? Metacognit. Learn. 11 15–33. 10.1007/s11409-015-9150-half-dozen [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sidi Y., Shpigelman M., Zalmanov H., Ackerman R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learn. Instr. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Siegenthaler Eastward., Schmid 50., Wyss Yard., Wurtz P. (2012). LCD vs. due east-ink: an analysis of the reading behaviour. J. Eye Move. Res. five 1–vii. 10.16910/jemr.5.iii.5 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Siegenthaler E., Wurtz P., Bergamin P., Groner R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and impress. Displays 32 268–273. x.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Vocalist L. One thousand., Alexander P. A. (2017a). Reading across mediums: effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. J. Exp. Educ. 85 155–172. 10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Singer 50. M., Alexander P. A. (2017b). Reading on paper and digitally: what the past decades of empirical research reveal. Rev. Educ. Res. 87 1007–1041. x.3102/0034654317722961 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Song Y. (2014). "Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)" for seamless scientific discipline enquiry in a primary school. Comput. Educ. 74 fifty–threescore. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Van Dijk T. A., Kintsch Westward. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, NY: Bookish Press. [Google Scholar]
• Willems R. M., Jacobs A. M. (2016). Caring about Dostoyevsky: the untapped potential of studying literature. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20 243–245. ten.1016/j.tics.2015.12.009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wolf Thousand. (2018). Reader, Come Abode: The Reading Brain in a Digital World. New York, NY: Harper. [Google Scholar]
• Xu B., Chen Yard., Sun Y., Huang R. (2017). "The effectiveness of media platforms on reading comprehension: a meta-analysis," in Proceedings of the 25th International Briefing on Computers in Didactics , ed. Chen W. (Zhongli District: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education; ),638–643. [Google Scholar]
• Yan Z., Hu Fifty., Chen H., Lu F. (2008). Computer vision syndrome: a widely spreading but largely unknown epidemic among calculator users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 2026–2042. x.1016/j.chb.2007.09.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

marrowhird1974.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6384527/

Share this post