Literature DB >> 26736059

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

Maja Köpper1, Susanne Mayr2, Axel Buchner1.   

Abstract

Four experiments were conducted to test whether recent developments in display technology would suffice to eliminate the well-known disadvantages in reading from screen as compared with paper. Proofreading speed and performance were equal for a TFT-LCD and a paper display, but there were more symptoms of eyestrain in the screen condition accompanied by a strong preference for paper (Experiment 1). These results were replicated using a longer reading duration (Experiment 2). Additional experiments were conducted to test hypotheses about the reasons for the higher amount of eyestrain associated with reading from screen. Reduced screen luminance did not change the pattern of results (Experiment 3), but positioning both displays in equal inclination angles eliminated the differences in eyestrain symptoms and increased proofreading speed in the screen condition (Experiment 4). A paper-like positioning of TFT-LCDs seems to enable unimpaired reading without evidence of increased physical strain. Practitioner Summary: Given the developments in screen technology, a re-assessment of the differences in proofreading speed and performance, well-being, and preference between computer screen and paper was conducted. State-of-the-art TFT-LCDs enable unimpaired reading, but a book-like positioning of screens seems necessary to minimise eyestrain symptoms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  TFT-LCD; display inclination; eyestrain; iPad; proofreading

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26736059     DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ergonomics        ISSN: 0014-0139            Impact factor:   2.778


  7 in total

1.  Discomfort glare and psychological stress during computer work: subjective responses and associations between neck pain and trapezius muscle blood flow.

Authors:  Randi Mork; Helle K Falkenberg; Knut Inge Fostervold; Hanne-Mari Schiøtz Thorud
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 3.015

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

Authors:  Aurélie Calabrèse; Long To; Yingchen He; Elizabeth Berkholtz; Paymon Rafian; Gordon E Legge
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen.

Authors:  Annika Schwabe; Lukas Brandl; Hajo G Boomgaarden; Günther Stocker
Journal:  J Res Read       Date:  2021-01-31

4.  Are models better read on paper or on screen? A comparative study.

Authors:  Mohamed El-Attar
Journal:  Softw Syst Model       Date:  2022-01-09       Impact factor: 2.211

5.  Attitudes of optometrists in the UK and Ireland to Digital Eye Strain and approaches to assessment and management.

Authors:  Patrick A Moore; James S Wolffsohn; Amy L Sheppard
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 3.992

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

Authors:  Alireza Sedighi; Sophia M Ulman; Maury A Nussbaum
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Does an iPad fixation disparity test give equivalent results to the Mallett near fixation disparity test?

Authors:  Ketan R Parmar; Christine Dickinson; Bruce J W Evans
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2019-09-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.