Literature DB >> 20462322

Comparing reading speed for horizontal and vertical English text.

Deyue Yu1, Heejung Park, David Gerold, Gordon E Legge.   

Abstract

There are three formats for arranging English text for vertical reading-upright letters arranged vertically (marquee), and horizontal text rotated 90 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise. Previous research has shown that reading is slower for all three vertical formats than for horizontal text, with marquee being slowest (M. D. Byrne, 2002). It has been proposed that the size of the visual span-the number of letters recognized with high accuracy without moving the eyes-is a visual factor limiting reading speed. We predicted that reduced visual-span size would be correlated with the slower reading for the three vertical formats. We tested this prediction with uppercase and lowercase letters. Reading performance was measured using two presentation methods: RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation) and flashcard (a block of text on four lines). On average, reading speed for horizontal text was 139% faster than marquee text and 81% faster than the rotated texts. Size of the visual span was highly correlated with changes in reading speed for both lowercase and uppercase letters and for both RSVP and flashcard reading. Our results are consistent with the view that slower reading of vertical text is due to a decrease in the size of the visual span for vertical reading.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20462322      PMCID: PMC2921212          DOI: 10.1167/10.2.21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  50 in total

1.  The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea.

Authors:  A Toet; D M Levi
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Psychophysics of reading. Clinical predictors of low-vision reading speed.

Authors:  G E Legge; J A Ross; L M Isenberg; J M LaMay
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data.

Authors:  M L Lindstrom; D M Bates
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Psychophysics of reading. VIII. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test.

Authors:  G E Legge; J A Ross; A Luebker; J M LaMay
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Why is word recognition impaired by disorientation while the identification of single letters is not?

Authors:  A Koriat; J Norman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Scrolled and rapid serial visual presentation texts are read at similar rates by the visually impaired.

Authors:  E M Fine; E Peli
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 2.129

7.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

8.  Control of eye movement with peripheral vision: implications for training of eccentric viewing.

Authors:  E Peli
Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt       Date:  1986-02

9.  Horizontal and vertical reading: a comparative investigation of eye movements.

Authors:  D Schmidt; D Ullrich; R Rossner
Journal:  Ger J Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-08

10.  Psychophysics of reading--II. Low vision.

Authors:  G E Legge; G S Rubin; D G Pelli; M M Schleske
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  24 in total

1.  Learning to read vertical text in peripheral vision.

Authors:  Ahalya Subramanian; Gordon E Legge; Gunther Harrison Wagoner; Deyue Yu
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  How a hobby can shape cognition: visual word recognition in competitive Scrabble players.

Authors:  Ian S Hargreaves; Penny M Pexman; Lenka Zdrazilova; Peter Sargious
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-01

3.  Training peripheral vision to read: Boosting the speed of letter processing.

Authors:  Deyue Yu; Gordon E Legge; Gunther Wagoner; Susana T L Chung
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Morpheme Transposition of Two-Character Chinese Words in Vertical Visual Fields.

Authors:  Hong-Wen Cao; Cheng Chen; Hong-Mei Yan
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2021-01-04

5.  Slow Reading in Glaucoma: Is it due to the Shrinking Visual Span in Central Vision?

Authors:  MiYoung Kwon; Rong Liu; Bhavika N Patel; Christopher Girkin
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Sensory factors limiting horizontal and vertical visual span for letter recognition.

Authors:  Deyue Yu; Gordon E Legge; Gunther Wagoner; Susana T L Chung
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Does letter rotation slow down orthographic processing in word recognition?

Authors:  Manuel Perea; Ana Marcet; María Fernández-López
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

Review 8.  Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography.

Authors:  Gordon E Legge; Charles A Bigelow
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Spatial-frequency requirements for reading revisited.

Authors:  MiYoung Kwon; Gordon E Legge
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Assessing reading performance in the periphery with a Bayesian adaptive approach: The qReading method.

Authors:  Timothy G Shepard; Fang Hou; Peter J Bex; Luis A Lesmes; Zhong-Lin Lu; Deyue Yu
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.