Is the Way We Read From a Kindle Vs Book Diffrent

Introduction

The Digitization of Literary Reading

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

In striking ways, the movement from paper to screen makes axiomatic that reading is a case of human-engineering interaction (Mangen and van der Weel, 2016). In add-on to more commonly addressed perceptual and cognitive components of soapbox processing, reading typically entails manual engagement with a device (e.thou., a print pocket volume, an eastward-reader or a tablet). Different devices have dissimilar 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 contiguous with the medium, whereas digitized texts are physically separable from their medium. This enables a digital device to shop a large number of texts and other content.

However, we know niggling about the ways in which such seemingly subtle differences may interact with cognitive and experiential aspects of reading. Reading scholars of a theoretical ilk take emphasized how reading is more than multisensory than ordinarily acknowledged: "Olfactory property and sight are relevant senses when it comes to reading [,]" says Naomi Baron, "simply affect may well be the most important" (Baron, 2015, p. 142). Analogously, Mc Laughlin notes how "the feel of the book to the hand, the smell of the newspaper, the haptic pleasure of manipulating the screen […] reinforce and deepen the habit of reading" (Mc Laughlin, 2015, p. 31). Broadly conceptualized, "haptic" (from Greek haptikos = able to impact) refers to the sense of touch. As such, information technology encompasses both "passive" (cutaneous [tactile]) and "active" (proprioceptive; kinesthetic) sensory processes. In the research literature, terms such as haptic, force feedback, and kinesthetic are often used interchangeably. In this article, kinesthetics will refer to the combined (passive) sense of touch (e.grand., pressure; temperature) and the (agile) 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 electric current digitization, and the increasing utilise of e-readers and tablets is an occasion to put such theoretical assumptions to empirical scrutiny.

Reading on Paper and Screens

During the past couple of decades, scientists and scholars in reading research have increasingly taken an involvement in potential furnishings of technological interfaces on aspects of reading and learning, more generally. A large number of empirical studies take been carried out, comparing reading on reckoner 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 multifariousness of methodologies, assessing the effects of screen backdrop on, e.g., perceptual processes (Roschke and Radach, 2016), memory and call back (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, enquiry has begun to address topics such equally ergonomics (Köpper et al., 2016), problems of medium materiality (Hou et al., 2017) and interactions between medium and detail text types/genres (Rasmusson, 2014; Vocalist and Alexander, 2017a). Every bit for furnishings 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 paper (Kim and Kim, 2013; Mangen et al., 2013; Rasmusson, 2014), whereas others prove no differences between paper and screen (Margolin et al., 2013; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013; Porion et al., 2016). Even so, a recent meta-analysis (Delgado et al., 2018) of 54 experiments published betwixt 2000 and 2017 comparing the reading of comparable texts on paper and screens does find an reward for paper both for betwixt-participants and for within-participants studies. The meta-assay revealed three significant moderators for this main finding: (i) fourth dimension frame (i.due east., the advantage for newspaper-based reading was stronger in time-constrained reading than in cocky-paced reading); (2) text genre: the newspaper-based reading reward was consistent across studies using informational text or a mix of informational and narrative texts, simply there was no difference for narrative-only texts; and (iii) publication year: opposite to assumptions of "digital natives" becoming better screen readers with increasing screen exposure and experience, the meta-analysis found that the advantage of paper-based reading in fact increased from 2000 to 2017 (Delgado et al., 2018).

In a similar vein, a systematic literature review of empirical research (Singer and Alexander, 2017b) constitute that when participants were reading texts for depth of understanding and not solely for gist, impress was the more effective processing medium. Moreover, with respect to reader preferences and habits, a recent large international survey (Mizrachi et al., 2018) with more than 10,000 participants found that, for academic reading, a broad majority reported a preference for impress, especially when reading longer texts. Interestingly, participants reported that they felt they remembered the material improve and were meliorate able to focus when reading in print, compared to when reading digitally (Mizrachi et al., 2018).

On another note, 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, just comprehension accuracy did not differ between media.

Visual and Ergonomic Affordances of Paper and Screen Substrates

Screen technologies vary with respect to visual ergonomics. Laptop/computer and tablet (LCD) screens emit light and hence are found to cause eyestrain and visual fatigue (Baccino, 2004; Blehm et al., 2005; Yan et al., 2008). In contrast, e-readers (east.g., Kindle) are based on electronic ink, a screen substrate especially designed to mimic paper (Siegenthaler et al., 2011). Due to a stable prototype, wider viewing bending, and the fact that they but reflect ambient light rather than emitting light, e-readers are more than reader friendly than tablets and computers, specially for longer texts. A growing body of evidence indicates that the readability of due east-readers is experienced as being equal to, and occasionally better than, that of paper (Siegenthaler et al., 2011, 2012; Benedetto et al., 2013). In addition, with screens it is possible to scroll upwards and down the pages of a volume. Nevertheless, 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 before studies on narrative reading on paper and screen (e.g., Mangen and Kuiken, 2014; Vocalist and Alexander, 2017a), we used a Kindle in the present study.

However, when reading a long text included in a book, there is more to reading than meets the heart. Indeed, for a long text printed on many pages, reading does not simply involve the eyes: it as well involves the hands. Whereas a text displayed on a Kindle and in a print book may exist similar with respect to visual properties (the texts look identical on paper and on screen), the two texts differ with respect to the ergonomic affordances of the substrate. Manipulating a printed-volume and an east-volume is not the aforementioned. When reading print text on paper, readers take immediate sensory – kinesthetic and tactile – access to text sequence, also equally to the entirety of the text. The sensorimotor contingencies of paper gives book readers visual as well equally kinesthetic feedback to their progress through a text (Mangen and Kuiken, 2014). To know where they are in a text printed on paper, readers have at their disposal several cues: they tin can have a look at the page number (visual cue), simply they tin also refer to tactile-kinesthetic cues given by the handling movements informing about the repartition of the weight of the pages on the left and on the correct of the current folio, 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 have simply 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 near 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 case when reading e-books.

Now, information technology is often reported by digital readers that they experience it difficult to take a clear representation on the entirety of the text and to localize a given role of information inside the text (e.thou., 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 print the certificate (Businesswoman et al., 2017; Mizrachi et al., 2018). For a reader, beingness able to situate where he/she read a given piece of data 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 time 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 fashion), a articulate representation of the temporal relationships between 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 earlier their consequences) and causal links between events is i 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 case, the reader has access to visual cues simply 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.

Withal, reading experiments using long narrative texts as stimuli is scarce. In what may have been the first 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 grouping reported a meliorate grasp of text length and of their location in the text than the iPad grouping. Interestingly, however, they found no correlation betwixt this "sense of dislocation" with readers' reported sense of narrative engagement, nor did the groups differ on cognitive measures (Mangen and Kuiken, 2014).

The nowadays study elaborates Mangen and Kuiken'southward 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 written report 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 beyond atmospheric condition, we modeled the print stimulus on the surface measures of the Kindle, and then 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 important in low-cal of our attempt at disentangling potential furnishings due to visual ergonomics on the one hand, and effects due to haptics and kinesthetics on the other. Nosotros combined cerebral measures of recall and comprehension with subjective measures assessing experiential aspects of reading a mystery short story on Kindle and in a print pocket volume. Specifically, nosotros combined word- and sentence recognition tasks, factual retrieve measures and assessment of readers' power to reconstruct spatial and temporal aspects of the text with rating scales assessing aspects of readers' engagement.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Fifty immature adults (mean age 24 ± 3.nine; 32 females) participated in the experiment. All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision. They signed a written and informed consent later on 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 asking about their study level, reading habits, and familiarity with e-readers. Upon request participants near their experience with Kindle (or similar device) reading, it was found that some were casual users of e-books. Only 2 participants among fifty were skillful 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, didactics) 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 but without unbalancing the two groups regarding e-reader familiarity (run across Table ane). After the reading session, we checked with the participants if they had read the story before. This was not the case for any of them. The study had prior approval by the Ideals Committee of the Aix-Marseille University (Due north° RCB 2010-A00155-34) and the CNRS. Participants signed a written informed consent class prior to the study. They were fully debriefed post-obit their participation.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics: demographics and reading habits.

Materials

Stimulus

The stimulus was a 28-folio (nearly 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 simulated pretenses" (Goodstein, 2010). It tells the story of an older woman, Jenny, who is called to be the executrix of her aunt's will. Jenny feels unfulfilled with her comfy but boring housewife life in Long Beach, California. When she he comes to the isolated Washington state isle community to settle her aunt's manor, she meets a mannerly young man who seems to offer her romance and excitement. They embark on an thing that seems to promise complete fulfillment of all of Jenny's desires, but things get very complicated when a very valuable stamp collection is discovered as office of the estate. The story is plot-based, piece of cake to read and progresses in a linear manner, without any significant analepses (flashbacks) or prolepses (foreshadowing) (Genette, 1983).

Media Dimensions (Print Book and Kindle)

For the print book condition, the 28 pages of the text appeared in a 250-page long dummy pocket book (see Figure ane). Ten blank pages preceded the first page of the story, and all pages post-obit the stop of the story, were blank. The text was printed recto-verso, just like in a "real" book. The purse was 20.0 cm in peak, 14.0 cm in width and one.8 cm thick. Its weight was 328 g. Great methodological care was taken to ensure similarity of the visual ergonomics of both reading brandish. The same pdf file was used to create both the print and the e-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 add-on, the electronic ink technology used in the Kindle allows long-grade reading without visual fatigue which could have a detrimental upshot on reading.

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

The Kindle was a Kindle DX, measuring 26.5 cm in height, 18.0 cm in width and 0.5 cm thick. The weight was 540 chiliad. The screen dimensions were: xx.0 cm × 14.0 cm (see Figure ane). The reader turned the folio by clicking on two buttons on the correct side, marked by color-codes and "forward" and "back" labels. In gild to ensure maximum comparability with the print volume, all other Kindle affordances were disabled (eastward.chiliad., the keyboard; search options; bookmarking). Earlier reading, the participant was briefly shown how to turn the pages.

Nosotros were particularly interested in potential changes in the participants' power to locate events in the text. To avoid that the participants referred to the page numbers to come across how many pages they had read, we stripped the texts in both atmospheric condition for page numbering and nosotros 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 i of the reading groups. They were not informed of the exact purpose of the experiment, only only that they will accept to read a short story and that they will exist asked to answer some questions after their reading. They were non told almost the content of the questions. The session took identify in a quiet room, and the participant saturday in a comfortable chair equipped with armrests. The experimenter was seated in the contrary corner of the room, facing away from the participant. Participants were handed the book opened on the first page and asked to starting time reading. When the participants had finished reading, the experimenter registered the actual reading time and the participants were asked to estimate the duration of their reading (number of minutes). Although it is not a common assessment in reading experiments, nosotros used the estimated reading time every bit an indirect index of how far the readers were transported in the story: the longer the estimated time, the lesser the transportation of the reader and vice-versa. Then, the participants completed the tests in the following social club:

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

Assessments of readers' comprehension were inspired by Van Dijk and Kintsch'south (1983) model of comprehension, defining comprehension as an outcome of the interaction of features of the text and the readers' knowledge. Van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) model distinguishes betwixt comprehension at text base of operations level (respective 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 knowledge), accommodating a nuanced assessment of readers' mental representations of different textual features at several levels In the present experiment, short-term recall, text-based (surface) level representation were assessed past recognition tasks, whereas situation model representation was assessed with measures tapping into readers' reconstruction of the story Short term retentiveness of words and sentences denotes the attention readers paid to the text during reading and the text comprehension.

- The Word Recognition Job consisted of 90 words. Participants were asked "Was this word present in the text you just read?" on a estimator screen and the response was given using the pointer keys of the keyboard.

- The Judgement Recognition Task independent 40 sentences. Participants were asked "Was this judgement nowadays in the texts you but read?" with the procedure existence aforementioned as for the word recognition test.

Participants' factual recall was assessed with a Content Recall Questionnaire comprising 64 multiple-selection items in five categories: (i) Characters: 23 questions about the story characters, their physical characteristics, personality features, relationships between characters (sample particular: "How one-time was Jenny when she had her first child?"); (ii) geographical setting: 9 questions about the locations of the story, assessing readers' recollection of spatial content (sample detail: "What is the name of the island where the story takes identify?"); (iii) primal locations: ix questions about primal locations in the story (sample item: "In which room in the cottage was Marion Mance found dead?"); (iv): objects: vi questions about primal objects in the story (sample detail: "What is the estimated value of the 'inverted Jenny' stamp?"); and (v) fourth dimension and temporality: 7 questions assessing readers' recollection of temporal dimensions of the story, e.one thousand., time lapse between events, chronology and duration of events (sample item: "For how long do Ian and Jenny stay at Blackberry point before the owners come up dorsum?"). Participants gave their response orally, and the examiner registered the response.

- "Where in the text?": in a measure inspired by the Rothkopf (1971). Experiment nosotros asked participants to locate sixteen sentence-length condensations of key events to their correct place in the text: the first (pages 1–9), second (pages 10–xviii), or third role (pages 19–28) (sample particular: "When did Ian discover the value of the 'Inverted Jenny' postage?"). The question format sentences were presented, one-past-one, on the screen and the participant gave her response orally. The examiner registered the response.

- 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 order to the participant. Participants were asked to sort them in the right order, in accordance with the plot. Upon completion of the task, the resulting lodge was registered past the experimenter.

Statistical Analysis

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

Results

Objective and Subjective Measures of Reading Fourth dimension

Results are presented in Table 2. At that place was no deviation betwixt reading media with respect to objective reading time [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 nearly identical across groups [fifty min, t(48) = 0.06, ns].

Table 2. Mean (SD) bodily and estimated reading times with both reading medium.

Transportation and Engagement Scale

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

Give-and-take Recognition Task

The mean number of right responses in this test was 59.eight (±7.v) and 61.2 (±6.nine) with the print volume and kindle respectively. The difference was not significant [t(48) = 0.70, ns].

Sentence Recognition Job

The mean number of correct responses in this test was 27.5 (±4.4) and 26.5 (±4.6) with the impress volume and kindle respectively. The departure was not significant [t(48) = 0.76, ns].

Factual Recall Questionnaire

Results are presented in Table 3. As the number of questions differed beyond sentences categories, we calculated the percentage of correct responses in each category by dividing the number of correct responses by the number of questions in the category. So, the percentages were arc sinus transformed to be analyzed past ways of a two-manner ANOVA with category equally a inside-subject factor and reading medium (print vs. Kindle) as between-subjects factor. The mean number of correct responses was 63.5 and lx.5% for print and e-book respectively [F(1,48) < 1, ns]. The number of right responses differed every bit a office of question category [F(4,192) = 13.ii, p < 0.001, η^two = 0.22]. Because we were particularly interested in the "time and temporality" questions we made a specific planned comparison between the two reading media in this category which revealed a statistically significant deviation [F(ane,48) = four.1, p < 0.05, η² = 0.08].

Table 3. Factual Recall Questionnaire: Rate of correct responses (%).

'Where in the Text?' Mensurate

There was no significant difference between the two reading media [F(1,48) = ane.91, ns]. The 'role of the text' factor was shut to pregnant [F(ii,96) = 2.97, p < 0.057]. Indicative of a well-known recency effect (Murdock, 1962; Gershberg and Shimamura, 1994), participants scored better for questions apropos the last third of the text, compared to the first and second part (Figure 2). Although this effect may seem larger in the Kindle group, the 'medium' by 'part of text' interaction was not significant [F(2,96) = i.ane, ns). However, the medium comparing for the get-go part but revealed a meaning effect (p < 0.05, η^two = 0.06). In other words, the print book readers gave more correct responses than the Kindle readers for questions concerning the kickoff part of the text.

Effigy 2. 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 by the participant, nosotros used the Kendall's tau rank altitude (Kendall, 1938, 1962), a statistical measure out that corresponds to the number of pairwise disagreements between two ranking lists. The more the ranking list given by the participant is far from the exact listing, the larger the altitude Kendall is³. The hateful distance was 4.8 for the 'print' group and 7.viii for the 'Kindle' grouping, and a t-test showed that the between-group difference was statistically significant [t(48) = 2.03, p < 0.05; η² = 0.08], pregnant that the print group performed better (with a shorter distance from the correct gild) than the Kindle group on this measure (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Plot reconstruction task: distance from right social club.

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

Because both tests were supposed to appraise the capacity to localize events in the space of the text and to replace events of the story in the correct order, we supposed that the performance in both tests would be somehow linked. Therefore, we made a regression analysis of the charge per unit of correct responses in the 'where in the text?' exam and the Kendall distance in the 'plot reconstruction exam beyond all subjects (both reading media confounded). This analysis revealed a meaning correlation between both variables [R = -0.356, F _(1,48) = 6.98, 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 material affordances of a Kindle on cognitive aspects of narrative reading. More specifically, we tested whether the Kindle's lack of kinesthetic and tactile feedback on the distribution and location of text elements may negatively affect aspects of readers' cognitive reconstruction of a narrative reading, in particular, with respect to its temporal and chronological dimension.

The question of the material affordances of the reading support has never been actually explored and in social club to accost this question specifically, we fabricated some methodological choices, the most important being the length of the text to read. Plain, if the kinesthetic feedback generated by the book manipulation matters, it tin can be but during long-course reading. Therefore, in this experiment we decided to have adult readers to read a long text (10,800 words), requiring approximately 1 h reading and hence a substantial manipulation of the volume. Such a long reading fourth dimension is beyond those usually 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 feature 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 every bit compared to a impress volume.

The results showed that, on most 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 particularly the example apropos the reading time which has been a thing of controversies in the literature, with some authors reporting a slower reading with tablets and others no difference. In the present study, the reading time did not differ co-ordinate to the type of reading support. Abreast the actual reading time, the level of engagement of the reader in the reading was assessed past a questionnaire, and more indirectly, by the subjective reading time. Neither of these measures yielded differences betwixt the reading media, thus nosotros may assume that readers' emotional engagement were roughly the same with both types of books. Furthermore, readers' score on the give-and-take- and sentence-recognition tests did not differ in the two conditions, suggesting that surface reading and attending paid to the text did not differ between the print book and the e-volume. Finally, in the recall questionnaire, most of the questions about the text content did not yield whatsoever differences. To conclude, most of the measures nosotros used to assess the text comprehension did not show any differences between print- and e-volume.

Nevertheless, some differences were observed between the media regarding tasks tapping into readers' power to correctly reconstruct temporal and chronological aspects of the text. In the retrieve questionnaire, on measures related to time and temporality, those who had read in the print pocket book, performed ameliorate than those who had read on a Kindle. The 'where in the text?' examination, which was specifically devoted to assessing the chapters of the readers to localize the events in the text, also yielded results going in the aforementioned 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 get-go of the story). Hence, the mental representation of the office of the text respective to the reading events which were the nigh remote in time (at the fourth dimension of the chore), was stronger for those who had read on paper than for those who had read on Kindle. Finally, the plot reconstruction test, which directly assessed the mental representation of the chronology of the story, indicated that print book readers had a more coherent state of affairs model than e-volume readers.

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

We suggest that these differences could be 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 one in which the temporal unfolding of events in the story corresponded closely with their spatial localization in the text (e.chiliad., no major flashbacks) so that there was a correspondence between "where in the text" and "when in the story" events occur. This is shown by the pregnant correlation observed between both tests results. In other words, the better the readers were able to locate events in the space of the text, the better 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 cerebral 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.east., the plot) matters. On the other hand, the intangibility of a text on a Kindle and lack of fixed cues – "fabric anchors" (Schilhab, 2017) – to length and spatiotemporal extension of the text may also 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 have left readers less confident about where they are in the text corpus (volume), and this lack of conviction may have had a negative effect on their power to build a correct representation of the story. Of related relevance, research has shown that having a practiced 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 fabric anchors of newspaper seem to have provided improve scaffolding for aspects of the mental reconstruction than the e-ink display of the Kindle. Even so, any conclusive interpretation of these results is challenged past the fact that establishing causality is linked to the processing of guild events, hence, inferior ordering of events could take been expected to negatively afflicted readers' mental construction of causality, in plow resulting in poorer overall comprehension. This was not the case in the present experiment, as readers in both weather 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 fourth dimension, rather than their power to reconstruct the order of events per se, on a global level. Future research should be designed to enable more precise assessments of the ways in which the affordances of reading substrates – screen displays and paper – may differently impact singled-out, merely closely related, aspects of mental reconstruction of chronology and temporality during mayhap especially long-form reading. In this task, developing improved measures for inter-events associations is pivotal.

Hou et al. (2017) distinguished two mechanisms to explicate why reading on a digital back up versus on paper might effect in different reading outcomes. The first mechanism contends that, considering they lack fixed visual anchors, screens brand information technology difficult for readers to construct an effective spatial representation of the text and, in turn, readers are impaired in their chapters to locate pieces of information in text. The second machinery they evoked is concerned with the sensorimotor engagement with the paper or digital texts, which was highlighted in the present experiment. We recollect that these 2 mechanisms are in fact the two sides of the aforementioned coin: both mechanisms could be involved simultaneously and differently depending on the visual brandish of the screen and the length of the text. Visual cues, informing near spatial relationships between parts of the text within a page, and sensorimotor cues furnished past the book handling and informing virtually spatial relationships between parts of the text disseminated among pages of the book, likely participate to the structure of the cognitive map of the text. In the present study, since we compared two books with visually identical pages, we focused more on the second aspect of reading.

Another attribute to consider which may assist 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 (run across east.g., Wolf, 2018). When reading lengthy texts, perhaps in particular 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 volume, we can easily get dorsum and cheque whenever needed, and we have firsthand admission to earlier pages whether they are five or 50 pages earlier the ane page we're currently reading. Obviously, we can besides go dorsum on a Kindle, just backtracking on a digital device is not as quick and effortless as with a paper book. Moreover, the reader'south chore 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 consequence being a sub-optimal mental representation of spatiotemporal relations between events and/or characters. Equally this is the first experiment to compare the reading of a long, linear text on paper and screen, we recommend that futurity studies are designed to address this issue more specifically and in-depth. This could be washed past, for instance, using text manipulations that can be causeless to trigger back-tracking and re-reading, for example by systematically changing information in a way that will require updates in readers' situation model (eastward.g., grapheme names or goals; event locations; causal or temporal relationships between events). Nosotros may inappreciably conclude that reading comprehension was afflicted with due east-volume considering most of the tests did non reveal differences between print and e-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 continued, the understanding of the story might be somehow different in print and due east-book. This point needs to be studied more precisely with longer texts and more specific measures.

Although steps were taken to ensure a more ecologically valid experimental setting than is often the case, it can be discussed whether the masking of page numbers (in both books) and too hiding the progress bar on the Kindle actually introduced an artifact that could somehow have influenced the results. Since we were primarily interested in assessing whether the deviation in sensorimotor cues between a paper-based and a screen-based volume made a divergence for aspects of comprehension, we decided to strip both texts of any visual cues to text length. Based on the results of the present experiment, we can merely conclude that sensorimotor cues play a role when reading a print volume, whereas they are lacking when reading an eastward-book. The question remains whether visual cues, such as the progress bar on a Kindle, are every bit efficient as sensorimotor cues. Therefore, future studies comparing long-form 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 newspaper and screen, as compared to sensorimotor cues. An additional limitation of the present study is that most of the participants were novices with respect to reading on a Kindle, and information technology can be claimed that they were non very avid readers of literature. To determine the role of medium expertise and preferences, and to empirically assess the assumptions underlying claims about so-chosen "digital natives," future studies should compare reading different kinds of texts on an e-reader and on paper amid proficient Kindle (and similar device) readers. It would be interesting to also replicate this finding with participants who are more avid literary readers.

The stimulus in this experiment was a plot-based mystery story, to a large extent based on a chronological ordering of deportment and events, so that the occurrence of an upshot in the story content – the "when in the story" – is often closely matched to the spatial location of the text passage in the book – the "where in the text." While it is non implausible that similar results can be found by using other types of linear, chronologically structured texts (eastward.chiliad., narratively presented historical accounts in textbooks), replications of the present study are needed, using different types and genres of texts (eastward.m., literary texts that are less plot-based; expository texts with low degree of narrativity). It may be that the ergonomic and visual affordances of different screen media may differently touch on cognitive aspects of reading, depending on a number of variables relating to text (due east.m., literary vs. non-literary; degree of narrativity; length; genre; structure/layout; complexity) as well as reader characteristics (east.grand., medium/engineering science expertise and preference). The increasing popularity of the Bring-Your-Own-Device solution (see, due east.g., Song, 2014) is testimony to the fact that for instance device ownership may exist a meaning factor in this equation.

Future research should likewise address the melancholia and emotional aspects of reading. Across applying an adapted version of Busselle and Bilandzic'south (2009) Narrative Engagement Scale, nosotros did not include any measures of emotional and affective aspects. Given that the stimulus text is a mystery story by an established author, this may seem an unfortunate omission. Moreover, applied post hoc, rating scales are likewise liable to distortion and tin more accurately be said to measure readers' verbalized retention of what they may have felt at the time of reading (run across e.g., Jacobs, 2016a,b). Ideally, offline measures of emotional aspects of reading should be complemented by online measures that are less decumbent to such distortions. Specifically, ratings and other exact responses could be fruitfully complemented with online, indirect, behavioral measures such as eye tracking or electrodermal activity, in social club to shed more light on the role of melancholia and emotional processes in perchance especially 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 as prose – textual fabric (see also 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 (see Kaakinen et al., 2018). Equally noted by Willems and Jacobs (2016), using literary texts as stimuli is, in this regard, a rich and largely untapped potential.

Limitations as the above notwithstanding, it seems safe to conclude that digitization brings with it the need to update existing models of reading in general, and of reading comprehension, in item. Importantly, models should be elaborated and refined to business relationship for the role of various features of media (e.thou., print books, laptops, tablets, and east-readers) and their substrates (east.one thousand., newspaper, electronic ink screens, LCD screens) on the reading of diverse types of texts, for different purposes. Mangen and van der Weel (2016) suggest such an integrative, transdisciplinary model, bookkeeping for the psychological, ergonomic, technological, social, cultural and evolutionary aspects of reading and how these are being affected by digitization. An exploratory model, it is intended to betoken to blanks in our knowledge of the differences betwixt newspaper and screen reading, hence pointing out directions for future empirical research. The findings of the nowadays experiment signal that one salient textual parameter to pursue in future research comparing paper and screen reading, is text length and the means in which a text may prompt re-reading, at various levels and for diverse reasons.

Conclusion

Although it should be considered largely exploratory, the study adds to a growing body of show indicating that newspaper and screen reading may differ besides in cases of linear, narrative reading where in that location are no hyperlinks to click on or multimedia content to process. Moreover, it illustrates the value of studying parameters not commonly addressed in reading inquiry, such as haptic and tactile feedback. In the process toward more than ecologically valid experiments in reading research, the report also 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.

Author Contributions

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

Disharmonize of Interest Statement

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

Acknowledgments

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

Footnotes

1. ^Come across, 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.
2. ^Cronbach's alpha for the original Narrative Engagement Scale was 0.80 (see Table three in Busselle and Bilandzic, 2009).
3. ^Kendall tau distance is equivalent to the number of swaps required to place one listing in the aforementioned lodge as the other listing. If both classifications are identical, the Kendall tau distance = 0; if both classifications are totally in opposite, the Kendall tau altitude = Due north (North-1) / 2 (in this example N = 14), resulting in a maximum distance of 91. The intermediate arrangements have a distance from the correct plot organisation ranging from 0 to 91.

References

Baccino, T. (2004). La Lecture Electronique. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

Baccino, T., and Pynte, J. (1994). Spatial coding and discourse models during text reading. Lang. Cogn. Process. 9, 143–155. doi: ten.1080/01690969408402114

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Baron, Northward. S. (2015). Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. Oxford: Oxford University Printing.

Google Scholar

Baron, N. Due south., Calixte, R. One thousand., and Havewala, M. (2017). The persistence of print among academy students: an exploratory study. Telematics Informatics 34, 590–604. doi: ten.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blehm, C., Vishnu, S., Khattak, A., Mitra, Southward., and Yee, R. W. (2005). Reckoner vision syndrome: a review. Surv. Ophthalmol. 50, 253–262. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.02.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Busselle, R., and Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative appointment. Media Psychol. 12, 321–347. doi: ten.1080/15213260903287259

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cataldo, One thousand. G., and Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the furnishings of text. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 791–799. doi: x.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., and Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: a meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educ. Res. Rev. 25, 23–38. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Genette, G. (1983). Narrative Soapbox: An Essay in Method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Printing.

Google Scholar

George, East. (2010). "Lusting for jenny, inverted," in Ii of the Deadliest, ed. E. George (New York, NY: HarperCollins), 227–254.

Google Scholar

Gershberg, F. B., and Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Serial position effects in implicit and explicit tests of memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. twenty, 1370–1378. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.xx.vi.1370

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gibson, J. J. (1977). "The theory of affordances," in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, eds R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 67–82.

Google Scholar

Hatwell, Y., Streri, A., and Gentaz, E. (eds) (2003). Touching for Knowing. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Compagny. doi: ten.1075/aicr.53

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hermena, E. W., Sheen, M., AlJassmi, Thousand., AlFalasi, K., AlMatroushi, M., and Hashemite kingdom of jordan, T. R. (2017). Reading rate and comprehension for text presented on tablet and paper: bear witness from arabic. Forepart. Psychol. 8:257. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00257

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hou, J., Rashid, J., and Lee, K. G. (2017). Cerebral map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Comput. Hum. Behav. 67, 84–94. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.x.014

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. M. (2015). Neurocognitive poetics: methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cerebral-affective bases of literature reception. Front. Hum. Neurosci. nine:186. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. M. (2016a). The scientific study of literary feel and neuro-behavioral responses to literature. Sci. Written report Lit. 6, 164–174. doi: ten.1075/ssol.six.1.08jac

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. M. (2016b). The scientific report of literary feel: sampling the country of the art. Sci. Study Lit. 5, 139–170. doi: 10.1075/ssol.5.2.01jac

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. One thousand., and Willems, R. M. (2018). The fictive brain: neurocognitive correlates of engagement in literature. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 22, 147–160. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000106

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaakinen, J., Papp-Zipernovszky, O., Werlen, E., Castells, North., Bergamin, P., Baccino, T., et al. (2018). "Emotional and motivational aspects of digital reading," in Learning to Read in a Digital World, eds K. Barzillai, J. Thou. Thomson, S. Schroeder, and P. Van den Broek (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 141–164. doi: 10.1075/swll.17.06kaa

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kendall, Grand. K. (1962). Rank Correlation Methods, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Hafner Publishing Company.

Google Scholar

Kerr, Yard. A., and Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: furnishings on children's reading of informational textile. Read. Writ. 19, 1–nineteen. doi: ten.1007/s11145-003-8128-y

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Kim, H., and Kim, J. (2013). Reading from an LCD monitor versus newspaper: teenagers' reading performance. Int. J. Res. Stud. Educ. Technol. 2, 15–24. doi: 10.5861/ijrset.2012.170

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Kintsch, W., and van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol. Rev. 85, 363–395. doi: ten.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Klatzky, R. L., and Lederman, S. J. (1988). "The intelligent hand," in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 21, ed. Yard. Bower (San Diego, CA: Bookish Press), 121–151.

Google Scholar

Klatzky, R. L., and Lederman, S. J. (2002). "Bear upon," in Handbook of Psychology: Experimental Psychology, Vol. iv, ed. I. B. Weiner (New York, NY: Wiley), 147–176.

Google Scholar

Köpper, Grand., Mayr, S., and Buchner, A. (2016). Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still brand a difference? Ergonomics i–18. doi: ten.1080/00140139.2015.1100757

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, Southward., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, G. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking show from the reading of books and digital media. PLoS One eight:e56178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056178

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kuijpers, Chiliad. M., Hakemulder, F., Tan, Eastward. Southward., and Doicaru, M. M. (2014). Exploring absorbing reading experiences. Sci. Study Lit. iv, 89–122. doi: ten.1075/ssol.iv.i.05kui

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lederman, Southward. J., and Klatzky, R. L. (1998). "The hand as perceptual organization," in The Psychology of the Hand, ed. Yard. J. Connolly (London: McKeith Press.), 16–35.

Google Scholar

Li, L., Chen, G., and Yang, S. (2013). Construction of cerebral maps to better east-book reading and navigation. Comput. Educ. sixty, 32–39. doi: ten.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mangen, A., and Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in the iPad: narrative date on newspaper and tablet. Sci. Study Lit. 4, 150–177. doi: 10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mangen, A., and van der Weel, A. (2016). The development of reading in the historic period of digitisation: an integrative framework for reading research. Literacy 50, 116–124. doi: 10.1111/lit.12086

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., and Brønnick, Thou. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screens: effects on reading comprehension. Int. J. Educ. Res. 58, 61–68. doi: x.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., and Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, estimator screens, or paper: does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 27, 512–519. doi: ten.1002/acp.2930

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mc Laughlin, T. (2015). Reading and the Body: The Physical Practise of Reading. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: ten.1007/978-1-137-52289-4

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A. M., Kurbanoglu, Southward., and Boustany, J. (2018). Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: a comparative survey analysis. PLoS One 13:e0197444. doi: ten.1371/journal.pone.0197444

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morineau, T., Blanche, C., Tobin, L., and Gueguen, N. (2005). The emergence of the contextual part of the east-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and functional analysis. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62, 329–348. doi: x.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.ten.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Norman, Due east., and Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: is at that place a difference between digital and non-digital study media? Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 301–309. doi: x.1016/j.chb.2015.07.043

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Payne, Due south., and Reader, W. (2006). Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line texts. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64, 461–474. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Porion, A., Aparicio, X., Megalakaki, O., Robert, A., and Baccino, T. (2016). The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 569–576. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rasmusson, Yard. (2014). Reading paper – reading screen. Nord. Stud. Educ. 35, 3–19.

Google Scholar

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, Thousand., and Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional impress textbooks: a comparing study on the influence of university students' learning. Comput. Educ. 63, 259–266. doi: ten.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Roschke, Yard., and Radach, R. (2016). "Perception, reading, and digital media," in The Cognitive Development of Reading and Reading Comprehension, ed. C. Yard. Connor (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. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01043.ten

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Rothkopf, Eastward. Z. (1971). Incidental memory for location of information in text. J. Verbal Learn. Exact Behav. 10, 608–613. doi: x.1016/S0022-5371(71)80066-X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, Grand., and van den Broek, P. (2018). "Comprehension processes in digital reading," in Learning to Read in a Digital World, eds M. Barzillai, J. K. Thomson, Due south. Schroeder, and P. van den Broek (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 91–120. doi: ten.1075/swll.17.04sal

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Schilhab, T. (2017). Derived Embodiment in Abstract Language. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing. doi: ten.1007/978-3-319-56056-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., and Ackerman, R. (2016). Generalizing screen inferiority-does the medium, screen versus newspaper, touch functioning even with cursory tasks? Metacognit. Larn. eleven, xv–33. doi: x.1007/s11409-015-9150-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sidi, Y., Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., and Ackerman, R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learn. Instr. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., and Groner, R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on due east-ink displays and impress. Displays 32, 268–273. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singer, Fifty. M., and Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Reading across mediums: effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and scale. J. Exp. Educ. 85, 155–172. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vocalizer, L. M., and Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Reading on newspaper and digitally: what the past decades of empirical research reveal. Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 1007–1041. doi: ten.3102/0034654317722961

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Song, Y. (2014). "Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)" for seamless science inquiry in a principal school. Comput. Educ. 74, l–60. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Soapbox Comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Google Scholar

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, Come Dwelling: The Reading Brain in a Digital Globe. New York, NY: Harper.

Google Scholar

Xu, B., Chen, G., Dominicus, Y., and Huang, R. (2017). "The effectiveness of media platforms on reading comprehension: a meta-analysis," in Proceedings of the 25th International Briefing on Computers in Education, ed. Due west. Chen (Zhongli District: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Instruction),638–643.

Yan, Z., Hu, Fifty., Chen, H., and Lu, F. (2008). Computer vision syndrome: a widely spreading simply largely unknown epidemic among reckoner users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 2026–2042. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.004

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Is the Way We Read From a Kindle Vs Book Diffrent

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038/full

Share this post