See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309562571

Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen

Article  in  Computers in Human Behavior · February 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014

CITATIONS READS

8 711

3 authors, including:

Jinghui (Jove) Hou Kwan Min Lee

Florida State University University of Southern California
17 PUBLICATIONS   203 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   2,538 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bridging the Vocabulary Gap between Health Professionals and Consumers View project

Technology and Cognition: Digital Reading and Learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinghui (Jove) Hou on 28 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen

Jinghui Hou a, *, Justin Rashid b, Kwan Min Lee c
a
School of Communication, Florida State University, C3115 University Center, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, United States
b
Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California, 3502 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, United States
c
Department of Interaction Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Sungkyunkwan-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 110-745, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study examined two common mechanisms that are used to explain why reading on an
Received 21 August 2016 electronic screen versus paper result in different reading outcomes: The Cognitive Map Mechanism and
Received in revised form the Medium Materiality Mechanism. A laboratory experiment (N ¼ 45), was conducted using a three-
16 October 2016
group comparison design (paper book vs. digital equivalent vs. digital disrupted view). Our hypotheses
Accepted 17 October 2016
Available online 29 October 2016
that were based on the cognitive map mechanism were largely supported. On the other hand, our hy-
potheses following the medium materiality mechanism were not sufficiently evidenced. Specifically, our
results showed that the paper book was similar to its digital equivalent, and both were better than the
Keywords:
Cognitive map
digital disrupted view in terms of reading comprehension, feelings of fatigue, and psychological im-
Medium materiality mersion. The findings implied that it is not the materiality of the presentation medium that influences
Comprehension reading outcomes, rather it is the extent to which the text presentation facilitates, or impedes, the
Fatigue reader's ability to construct a cognitive map that influences the reading process. Implications for future
Immersion research and practice are discussed.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction paper might result in different reading outcomes center on two

Since the 1980s, scholars in many fields e including psychology,
media studies, computer engineering, and information science and
library e have published extensive studies investigating one
question: How does reading on screens differ from reading papers?
To date, this fundamental research question remains partially
addressed at best. By the early 1990s, most studies concluded that
people read slower, less accurately, and less comprehensively on
screens than from papers (e.g., Gould & Grischkowsky, 1984; Muter,
Latremouille, Treurniet, & Beam, 1982; Smedshammar, Frenckner,
Nordquist, & Romberger, 1989; Wright & Lickorish, 1983).
Research published since then, on the contrary, has produced
mixed results. Some studies have confirmed previous conclusions
(Kim & Kim, 2013; Kurniawan & Zaphiris, 2001), while many more
have found few significant differences in reading speed, accuracy of
recall, or comprehension between paper and screen (Margolin,
Driscoll, Toland, & Kegler, 2013; Kretzschmar et al., 2013; Noyes
& Garland, 2003).
Attempts to explain the reasons why reading on a screen versus
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jhou@fsu.edu (J. Hou), jrashid@usc.edu
kwanminlee@gmail.com (K.M. Lee).
mechanisms. The first mechanism is concerned with the psycho-
logical aspects of reading behavior. It contends that screens make it
difficult for readers to construct an effective cognitive map, or a
spatial representation, of the text (Li, Chen, & Yang, 2013; Payne &
Reader, 2006). This weak efficiency for constructing cognitive
maps, in turn, impairs navigational performance (i.e., searching for
or locating a piece of textual information), reading speed, content
recall, and reading comprehension (Li et al., 2013; Payne & Reader,
2006). The second mechanism focuses on the material character-
istics of the presentation medium (screen or paper), and it suggests
that the materiality of the reading medium influences text pro-
cessing (Mangen & Schilhab, 2012; Mangen, 2008). Text on paper is
touchable and tangible, whereas text on screens is intangible,
mediated, and detached from the physical support of the reading
medium. The haptic interactions with paper text afford readers
richer sensorimotor engagement with the text compared to screen
text, which enhances information encoding and comprehension.
Research comparing reading on paper versus screens has still
shown inconsistent findings, partly because the majority of the
studies have not employed a rigorously controlled design to isolate
the effects of the two mechanisms. Due to the lack of controlled
designs, one mechanism appeared to be a confounding factor for
(J. Rashid),
the other. The main goal of the present study is to disentangle the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
effects of the two mechanisms. Utilizing a uniquely designed
experiment stimulus, this study is among the first to compare and
test the two mechanisms in the area.
2. Literature review
2.1. The cognitive map mechanism
Researchers believed that human minds automatically treat
written texts as if they were physical objects (Jabr, 2013; Wolf,
2007). Evolutionary psychologists proposed that the human brain
is an evolved organ with a range of functionally distinct mecha-
nisms, or “modules,” designed to guide specific adaptive behaviors,
such as hunting for food, escaping danger, and selecting a mate
(Chomsky, 1980; Sherry & Schacter, 1987; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992,
1994). The behavior of reading is a relatively recent human in-
vention in evolutionary history. There is no direct module specif-
ically dedicated to this new skill (Wolf, 2007). Instead, reading
relies on an array of existing modules, such as vision, speech, motor
coordination, and visual object recognition (Jabr, 2013; Nakamura
et al., 2012). Visual object recognition is the ability to rapidly
detect and classify objects despite the substantial variation in
appearance that each object produces on our eyes (DiCarlo,
Zoccolan, & Rust, 2012). Our ability to distinguish an apple from
an orange or to recognize the words on this page depends on this
objective recognition module (DiCarlo et al., 2012). Recent fMRI
studies have also provided evidence that the brain circuit special-
ized for visual object recognition is activated during reading (e.g.,
Nakamura et al., 2012).
Furthermore, human brains not only treat a text as a tangible
part of the physical world, but also perceive a text within its
structure as a physical landscape. When the human brain gathers
visual information about an object, it also gathers information
about its surroundings, and associates the two (Jabr, 2013; Li et al.,
2013). In a similar manner to how people construct a mental map of
a physical environment (e.g., a desk in the center of an office facing
the door), readers form a “cognitive map” of the physical location of
a text and its spatial relationship to the page as a whole (Jabr, 2013;
Li et al., 2013; Payne & Reader, 2006; Waller, 1985). For example,
both scholarly evidence and anecdotal experience testify that when
people try to locate a particular piece of information they have read,
they often are able to recall where in the text it appeared, such as a
limerick on the top of a right-hand page (Rothkopf, 1971). Thus,
during the reading process, people acquire knowledge of a docu-
ment's structure, as well as the contents of the document (Payne &
Reader, 2006).
It is generally agreed that paper books make it easier for readers
to form a coherent cognitive map of the text than onscreen texts
(Jabr, 2013). Paper books have fixed layouts. A single page of a paper
book presents a reader with four corners and a frame e two long
and two short borders e with which to orient oneself. A reader can
see where a piece of textual information is in relation to the page
corners and borders. One can also sense the relative spatial rela-
tionship between texts within a page (Hansen & Haas, 1988;
Morineau, Blanche, Tobin, & Gue
guen, 2005; Li et al., 2013). The
fixed layout of a paper book provides a reader with cues to the
structure of a text, thus facilitating the construction of cognitive
maps of the text. In other words, the fixed layout conveys structure
information that a reader is able to use in forming a cognitive map
of the document. With a coherent mental map in mind, a reader has
better knowledge of a text's structure, and is more unconsciously
aware of one's place in the document (Crestani & Ntioudis, 2001).
Such spatial knowledge helps a reader to locate text one has seen
before (Liesaputra & Witten, 2012), and support more effective
retention and comprehension of the content (Chun & Jiang, 1998; Li
85
et al., 2013; Morineau et al., 2005).
In contrast to paper books, screens, in general, weaken the
spatial cues about a reader's location in a text (Dillon, 1992; O'Hara
& Sellen, 1997; Liesaputra & Witten, 2012; McDonald & Stevenson,
1998), and they impede the reader in forming an effective cognitive
map (Jabr, 2013; Li et al., 2013). When the cognitive map is not
effectively constructed, a reader employs greater cognitive re-
sources to navigate texts and to retain information, which leaves
the reader less cognitive capacity for information recall and
comprehension (Li et al., 2013). For example, empirical studies on
hypertext reading have provided evidence for the cognitive map
mechanism. Hypertext is a type of electronic text that connects
(“hyperlinks”) to other texts. Hypertexts have been shown to
impede users in forming cognitive maps of the complexly struc-
tured texts, create disorientation (Payne & Reader, 2006; Simpson
& McKnight, 1990) and cognitive overload in readers (Conklin,
1987; Stanton, Correia, & Dias, 2000), and impair reading
comprehension performance (DeStefano & LeFevre, 2007). Scholars
have contended that the “disorientation” problem associated with
reading hypertext is a consequence of readers failing to construct
an effective cognitive map of the flexibly structured hypertexts
(Elm & Woods, 1985; Leventhal, Teasley, Instone, Rohlman, &
Farhat, 1993; Payne & Reader, 2006; Simpson & McKnight, 1990).
Such a disorientation problem can be alleviated by providing hy-
pertext readers an explicit visual structure map, which aids readers
in cognitive map formation (e.g., Li et al., 2013).
In summary, the cognitive map mechanism argues that the
extent to which a text presentation facilitates or attenuates the
construction of a cognitive map of its structure is the key factor that
influences navigational performance (Li et al., 2013; Simpson &
McKnight, 1990), content retention (Chun & Jiang, 1998;
Morineau et al., 2005), and comprehension (Li et al., 2013;
Morineau et al., 2005). A text presentation supporting the forma-
tion of a mental map of the text structure, such as a text on a paper,
bolsters recall and comprehension performance, while a text pre-
sentation with weak efficacy for forming a mental map, such as text
on a screen, impairs such performance.
2.2. The medium materiality mechanism
Another primary mechanism to explain the potential differences
between reading on paper versus on a screen is concerned with the
material characteristics of the presentation medium. Initially,
scholars (Belmore, 1985; Bevan, 1981; Gould & Grischkowsky, 1986;
Gould et al., 1987; Gray, 1991; Noyes & Garland, 2003; Ziefle, 1998)
explained the differences in reading speed and comprehension in
the context of the physical novelties and constraints inherent in the
use of a screen (e.g., screen contrast, optical strain, backlighting and
flickering, display quality, and page manipulation). Reading on a
screen involves both processing the reading text and handling the
reading medium. Thus, a screen might impose additional cognitive
load to control the reading medium, leaving less cognitive capacity
to deal with the text itself (Wastlund, Reinikka, Norlander, &
Archer, 2005; Mayes, Sims, & Koonce, 2001). In contrast, a paper
book is a physically and functionally unitary object. The interaction
with paper books is so natural, intuitive, and immediate that
readers cease to cognitively process it; therefore, it has lower
cognitive demands.
However, it should be noted that such discrepancies were
observed primarily by early work that compared paper text to text
on the first generation of video display terminals (VDTs) (Dillon,
McKnight, & Richardson, 1988). It is possible that some of these
discrepancies have reduced due to the remarkable advances in
screen technology (Margolin et al., 2013). For instance, previous
studies reported increased visual fatigue and eyestrain when
86 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
reading from screens as opposed to paper (Cushman, 1986; Pearce,
1984). As a result, screen-based reading is more physically tiring
and mentally taxing than reading paper. The higher demand of
physical and cognitive effort inhibits reading comprehension.
However, the improvements in technology e from cathode ray tube
(CRT) terminals, through liquid crystal displays (LCDs), to the latest
e-paper technology (also known as “e-ink”) e have significantly
reduced visual fatigue and feelings of discomfort (Lin, Lin, Hwang,
Jeng, & Liao, 2008). Some recent experiments showed that e-pa-
per, a screen technology that emulates the appearance of ordinary
ink on paper, is equivalent to printed paper in terms of optics
(Benedetto, Drai-Zerbib, Pedrotti, Tissier, & Baccino, 2013), and can
even potentially improve reading comprehension (cf. Conlon &
Sanders, 2011; Withers, 2013). Therefore, the advancement of
screen technology can be a potential reason for the inconsistency in
the findings between early work and more recent studies. The first
generation of video screens are very different from the digital
screens found on today's computers. Some technological con-
straints of the era in which early research was taking place might
have been substantially improved to the extent that they may no
longer produce significant discrepancies in terms of reading speed,
comprehension, fatigue, and subject preference (e.g., Green, Perera,
Dance, & Myers, 2010; Huang, 2006; Margolin et al., 2013; Tanner,
2014).
Our study focuses on another emerging theme of research,
which also examines the materiality of the reading medium, but
from a different angle (Mangen & Kuiken, 2014; Mangen &
Schilhab, 2012; Mangen, 2008). Reading can be considered as an
interaction between a human and a medium, be it a paper book or a
screen. This interaction with a reading medium engages a variety of
sensorimotor experiences. Many people prefer to read a paper book
because it has weight, renders the feel of riffling and flipping the
pages, offers the sound of sheets crinkling, while some also love the
smell of the paper and the touch of the artwork. The registering of
touch and sight, and even of smell and hearing, manifest that
content delivery is not a paper book's only affordance. An afford-
ance is a property of an object that determines how the object can
be used (Gibson, 1977, 1979; Norman, 2002). For instance, Mangen,
Walgermo, and Brønnick, 2013; Mangen, 2008; Mangen & Schilhab,
2012 have produced a considerable amount of work to investigate
the role of haptics e the sense of touch and movement of fingers
and hands e in the reading process. In their view, reading is an
activity that involves the use of human hands and fingers, in
addition to eyes and brains. Meanwhile, readers' haptic interaction
with text is afforded by the physical support of the reading me-
dium. For example, people use hands and fingers to touch and turn
pages of a paper book when they read. This differs from the way
people use hands to interact with screens e the way people click
and scroll, or handle touchscreens. The fundamental difference of
the haptic interaction with paper versus a screen might lead people
to experience a text differently (Mangen, 2008; Mangen & Schilhab,
2012). When reading a paper book, one can touch the material
substrate of the text, and feel the paper and ink with one's fingers
and hands. The text is inseparable from the material form e the
paper. When reading texts on a screen, the readers might feel that
their haptic interaction with the text is a mediated experience or
that it takes place at a distance from the actual text. The text is
detached from the physical medium that delivers it because the
actual text is only temporarily displayed on the screen and not built
into the device's hardware; the same screen can display a multitude
of content with the click of a button. Thus, where paper text is
tangible and touchable, text on a screen is intangible and detached
or mediated (Mangen, 2008; Mangen & Schilhab, 2012). Hence, the
materiality of text on paper and that of text on a screen differ in a
fundamental way.
Furthermore, the sensorimotor experience of the reading me-
dium's materiality influences cognitive processing of the text con-
tent. According to the multi-sensory learning theory (Mercer &
Mercer, 1993; Murphy, 1997; Shams & Seitz, 2008), people learn
best when information is presented across multiple sensory mo-
dalities. Human beings engage different parts of the brain to encode
the text that they see, hear, or touch (Shams & Seitz, 2008). Thus,
the use of hands in the reading process can facilitate information
encoding. The richer the sensorimotor engagement that a reader
experiences with a text, the greater the opportunities for multi-
sensory information encoding and for the text to be compre-
hended. This means that people use a sense of touch and motor
skills to supplement the visual processing of reading. The materi-
ality of paper text is touchable and tangible, which affords a richer
sensorimotor experience, and bolsters information encoding and
content comprehension. In contrast, screen text is intangible and
detached or mediated. This immateriality degrades sensorimotor
engagement with the text and attenuates content recall and
comprehension. In this regard, it is not the technological con-
straints of a screen that demand extra cognitive load or interfere
with the reading process because “no matter how print-like the
quality of the … screen, the text as such remains digital and hence
detached from the physical support.” (Mangen, 2008, p. 416).
In sum, different reading media have different material char-
acteristics that afford different sensorimotor experiences, which
influences the cognitive processing of the reading text. However,
while scholars have maintained the importance of the materiality
of the reading media (Mackey, 2007; Mangen, 2008; Merchant,
2007; Morineau et al., 2005), they appealed that “issues of mate-
riality have been largely neglected in reading research overall.”
(Mangen, 2008, p. 405). As Morineau et al. pointed out, “interaction
with the physical support of the e-book during encoding is very
different than with a classical paper book, but we know of no
experimental work on this matter.” (Morineau et al., 2005, p. 336).
Our study aims to contribute to this line of research to examine the
potential impact of (im)materiality on text processing. In particular,
we investigate how screen text being digital, and hence detached
from physical support, might influence different reading outcomes.
2.3. A direct test of the two mechanisms
Research findings from the 1990s to the present have been
inconclusive, but tended to imply that reading from screens affords
less comprehension and is slower than reading from printed ma-
terials. For example, Mangen and colleagues (Mangen et al., 2013)
devised an experiment that required participants to answer
comprehension questions after reading a four-page text. Half of the
participants read from an unpaginated PDF file on a 15-inch LCD
monitor and were able to scroll up and down the pages, while the
other half read the same text from printed paper. The participants
who read the printed text performed significantly better on the
comprehension test than those who read the text on the screen. A
large body of research employed a similar study design (e.g.,
Mangen & Kuiken, 2014; Kerr & Symons, 2006; Mayes et al., 2001;
Wastlund et al., 2005), and reached a similar conclusion: Presen-
tation medium does influence reading performance. However, a
crucial problem is that these studies were not controlled to pre-
cisely test the effect of the presentation medium (Noyes & Garland,
2003). In Mangen et al.'s (2013) study, they attempted to ensure
that the texts presented on the LCD and the paper were as identical
as possible, and so they used a PDF version of the same text as the
one on paper. However, one important factor that was not
controlled for was the extent to which the text presentation on the
two media supports or hinders the construction of a cognitive map
of the text. We argue that this factor is a key confounding variable
 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
that influences the reading process according to the cognitive map
mechanism. In the study (Mangen et al., 2013), participants in the
screen condition were able to scroll up and down the pages.
Scrolling is known to impede a reader's ability to form an effective
mental map of the text (Eklundh, 1992; Piolat, Roussey, & Thunin,
1997). When scrolling, readers typically manipulate the text up or
down line by line, thus they are transited to entirely new layouts
from moment to moment. The spatial flexibility and instability of
the text presentation makes it hard for readers to reconstruct the
physical layout of the text, which interrupts mental map formation.
On the other hand, the fixity of the text in the paper condition
supports the construction of a mental map of the text's structure.
Therefore, the cognitive map mechanism could potentially explain
the significantly poorer comprehension for text presented on the
screens than on paper. Naturally, the medium materiality mecha-
nism could also be a valid explanation because the immateriality of
the screen text could account for the observed difference in the
study. In this regard, the medium itself would influence reading
comprehension.
The problem is that, given the design of the study, it was
impossible to rigorously test whether the observed discrepancies in
comprehension between the paper and screen conditions were an
effect of the medium materiality mechanism, the cognitive map
mechanism, or both. Therefore, the main goal of the present study
is to disentangle the effects of these two mechanisms. To the best of
our knowledge, the current study is the first to directly compare
and test the two mechanisms through a uniquely designed exper-
iment stimulus.
2.3.1. Reading comprehension
The cognitive map mechanism implies that it is not the pre-
sentation medium per se that affects reading comprehension, but
rather the key factor is whether the text presentation facilitates or
hampers readers to produce a cognitive map of the structure of the
text. As Kerr and Symons (2006) stated, “Difficulties in reading from
computers may be due to disrupted mental maps of the text, which
may be reflected in poorer understanding and ultimately poorer
recall of presented material.” (p. 5). Research has demonstrated
that the lack of fixity and spatiotemporal markers when reading on
screens can impede reading comprehension (Cataldo & Oakhill,
2000; Kerr & Symons, 2006; Le Bigot, Passerault, & Olive, 2009;
Piolat et al., 1997; Wastlund, 2007). On the other hand, advocates
of the medium materiality mechanism conceive reading as a
multisensory interaction with the reading medium. In particular,
the haptic interactions with a paper text afford readers richer
sensorimotor engagement with the text, which enhances infor-
mation encoding, compared to a screen text. Thus, the visual and
haptic coordination may offload the visual sensory processing,
leaving more cognitive capacity for comprehension (Mangen &
Schilhab, 2012; Mangen, 2008). Therefore, we expect that:
H1a. The cognitive map mechanism would have a main effect on
reading comprehension, such that individuals would display poorer
comprehension performance when exposed to a text that has weak
efficacy for forming a cognitive map.
H1b. The medium materiality mechanism would have a main
effect on reading comprehension, such that individuals would
display poorer comprehension performance when reading from an
electronic screen than from paper.
2.3.2. Reading speed
Early work showed that people read slower on a screen than on
a paper by as much as 20e30 percent (see review by Dillon, 1992).
Relatively recent studies reported insignificant differences between
87
two media in terms of reading times (Askwall, 1985; Cushman,
1986; Holzinger et al., 2011; Muter & Maurutto, 1991; Noyes &
Garland, 2003; Zambarbieri & Carniglia, 2012). Some researchers
found that readers tend to adjust their reading rate to ensure that
they understand the meaning of the text materials (Kerr & Symons,
2006; Mills & Weldon, 1987). For example, Kerr and Symons (2006)
assessed children's reading rates and comprehension on paper
versus computers with a scrolling text presentation and they found
that children read slower on computers than on paper. However,
the authors contended that when given sufficient time, children
could achieve the same comprehension level between paper and
computer. If this proposition is correct, we should see no significant
difference in comprehension but a significant difference in reading
speed between the two media. An early study (Moore & Zabrucky,
1995) observed that while readers' self-judged comprehension did
not differ in computer versus paper reading, they read significantly
slower on computers. To better understand the possible discrep-
ancies in comprehension, reading speed should be taken into ac-
count (Kerr & Symons, 2006; Mills & Weldon, 1987). Therefore, our
study assesses reading speed and anticipates that:
H2a. The cognitive map mechanism would have a main effect on
reading speed, such that individuals would read slower when
exposed to a text that has weak efficacy for forming a cognitive
map.
H2b. The medium materiality mechanism would have a main
effect on reading speed, such that individuals would read slower
when reading from an electronic screen than from paper.
2.3.3. Fatigue
The American Optometric Association (2015) officially recog-
nizes computer vision syndrome, where common symptoms
include eyestrain, headaches, dry eyes, plus neck and shoulder pain
that result from digital screen use. The cognitive map mechanism
explains fatigue, in terms of the extra load imposed on cognitive
processing systems, by becoming disoriented due to difficulties in
forming a mental map of a text. For instance, reading hypertext
(DeStefano & LeFevre, 2007), a text type known to hinder cognitive
map construction, demanded more cognitive resources than
reading a conventional linear-formatted text. This finding was
reinforced by an electroencephalographic (EEG) study, which
observed increased pupil dilation and desynchronization of oscil-
latory activity when reading hypertext; both measures indicated
extra cognitive load employed to process a text (Scharinger,
Kammerer, & Gerjets, 2015). Pynte, Kennedy, and Ducrot (2004)
observed that unfamiliar or complex text drew readers' eyes and
interrupted moment-to-moment information processing. Inter-
rupting eye movements prevent a reader from choosing the next
lexical fixation point (Zhang, Yan, Kendrick, & Li, 2012), and
increased burdening to coordinate the eyes with the text could
increase eye fatigue (Mayes et al., 2001). When reading a text that
hinders mental map construction, readers' eyes may grow fatigued
from the constantly shifting layouts. Each time readers transit to a
new layout (e.g., each scroll to reveal a new line), their eyes need to
adjust, which results in higher visual burdening and higher mental
and physical resource exertion.
The medium materiality mechanism also suggests that reading
onscreen text exhausts mental resources more quickly than reading
paper text, making onscreen text more fatiguing. Depending on
whether visual or haptic modalities are employed, information
processing occurs in different areas of the working memory system,
with both areas having a limited capacity (Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn,
2001). When reading paper text, the haptic modality might off-
load some cognitive demands onto the visual modality, thereby
88 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
alleviating visual fatigue (Mangen & Schilhab, 2012). Accordingly,
we expect that:
H3a. The cognitive map mechanism would have a main effect on
fatigue, such that individuals would experience increased fatigue
when exposed to text that has a weak efficacy for forming a
cognitive map.
H3b. The medium materiality mechanism would have a main
effect on fatigue, such that individuals would experience increased
fatigue when reading from an electronic screen than from paper.
2.3.4. Immersion
Perhaps one of the most enjoyable aspects of reading is to
become immersed in the story worlds constructed by narrative
texts. Immersion refers to a sense of engagement or an experience
of losing oneself in an environment (Hou, Nam, Peng, & Lee, 2012;
Witmer & Singer, 1998). It entails a complete focus on the envi-
ronment and an appealing engrossment free from distractions (Hou
et al., 2012). Empirical studies examining the effect of either
mechanism (cognitive map or medium materiality) on readers'
immersion experience has been limited. In Mangen and Kuiken’s
(2014) study, paper readers who read a story reported higher on
immersion measures than Apple iPad readers. Another study
(Mangen, Robinet, Olivier, & Velay, 2014) had participants read a
28-page mystery story and place 14 events of the story in order. The
results showed that book readers were significantly better at
remembering the order of events than Amazon Kindle readers.
Although this study did not measure immersion directly, the ability
of participants to reconstruct the plot may imply their engagement
level with a narrative text.
Researchers contended that for readers to become “lost” in a
book, the medium on which the text is displayed should be as less
interrupting as possible (Mangen & Kuiken, 2014; Nell, 1988).
Beyond the medium, a neural study (Pynte et al., 2004) showed that
reading an interrupting text, such as one with typographic errors,
interfered with moment-to-moment information processing and
compromised reading concentration. A text presentation that im-
pedes the construction of a cognitive map could also be considered
interrupting, which might interfere in text processing and hurt
readers' immersion in the narrative world. Some scholars have
argued that the very immateriality of screen text prevents readers
from immersing themselves in reading (Baron, 2012; Mangen,
2008). Mangen and Kuiken (2014) argued that the immersion
discrepancy resulted from the different sensorimotor and ergo-
nomic affordances of a tablet screen and paper because the intan-
gibility of the screen text can lead people to read in a shallower way
(Mangen, 2008). Accordingly, we postulate that:
H4a. The cognitive map mechanism would have a main effect on
immersion, such that individuals would experience less immersion
when exposed to text that has a weak efficacy for forming a
cognitive map.
H4b. The medium materiality mechanism would have a main
effect on immersion, such that individuals would experience less
immersion when reading from an electronic screen than from
paper.
3. Method
3.1. Reading materials
The reading material chosen for the present experiment was a
comic book. Comic books are a type of narrative text, which differs
from expository text in that the former aims to tell a story while the
latter conveys and explains facts and information. While previous
research (Margolin et al., 2013) found no significant differences
between reading narrative or expository texts on screens versus
paper, we chose to study comic books because they can quickly
engross readers, making them suitable to investigate readers'
experience of immersion. Moreover, leisure-reading texts, such as
bestsellers, comics, and magazines represent the most popular
genre on tablets and e-books (Thayer et al., 2011). As past electronic
reading research has predominately focused on academic and
professional related reading (e.g., textbooks), many scholars sug-
gested that reading for entertainment purposes is still an under-
studied area in need of attention (e.g., Chen, Xiao, Fan, & O'Brien-
Strain, 2011; Liesaputra & Witten, 2012).
In particular, two issues of Marvel Comics' Civil War (2006) se-
ries were used as the reading material, each issue being approxi-
mately 30 pages long. This series was chosen because it contains
some of the most well-known comic book characters (e.g., Iron
Man, Captain America, Spider-Man), of whom most, if not all, of the
participants would have heard. This made the material topical and
of interest. In addition, the series was a short-lived one-off special,
which limited the possibility that participants were already familiar
with the story.
3.2. Experiment design & apparatus
This experiment employed a three-group between-subject
comparison design (paper vs. digital equivalent vs. digital disrupted
view). The basic activities in the experiment involved reading a
comic and completing questionnaires afterwards. In the first con-
dition, a softcover paper color version of the comic book was used,
with dimensions of 8.4  5.8  0.4 inches (see Fig. 1). In both the
second and the third conditions, the Apple's iPad tablet was used as
the reading medium, with dimensions of 9.6  7.5  0.5 inches. The
iPad's LCD screen display was 7.6  5.8 inches wide, or diagonal 9.7
inches (see Fig. 2).
In the digital equivalent condition, the full comic page was
displayed on the 9.7-inch tablet screen, which was slightly smaller
than, but close to, the size of the printed book in the first condition.
The full-page layout is identical to that of the paper book, where
participants read a full-page at a time without needing to scroll
within a page (see Fig. 3). Apple's iPad is considered ideal for
graphic content due to its technical advancement in displaying
bright and vibrant colors, thus makes the graphic quality on screen
comparable to that of the paper book. Moreover, this touchscreen
tablet employed a swipe-through operation to turn (digital) pages
in a way that simulates the act of turning physical pages. Such
navigation methods offer a more natural feel than button (click)
navigation (Liesaputra & Witten, 2012). The comics were down-
loaded and installed on the devices before the experiment started
so that any possible delays in page loading were minimized,
resembling the immediate access characteristic of paper books.
Participants were also instructed to read in the portrait orientation.
In sum, the size, layout, color, navigation method, and display of the
comic book in the digital equivalent condition closely resembled its
print counterpart. As such, our design of the digital equivalent
condition controlled for the extent to which the text supports or
impedes readers' ability to construct a mental map of the text. The
paper book and the digital equivalent conditions were kept as
identical as possible except that the text on the paper book was
tangible, whereas the text in the digital equivalent condition was
digital, intangible, and hence detached from the physical support.
In the digital disrupted view condition, a special design was
used to break up the page structure of the comic. Participants in this
condition went panel-by-panel of a page instead of page-to-page.
 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94 89

Fig. 1. The first condition - The softcover copy of Marvel Comics' Civil War (2006) series.

Fig. 2. An Apple iPad tablet installed with Marvel Comics' Application.

90 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
Fig. 3. The second condition e digital equivalent e displayed one full page of the comic.
Specifically, this design zoomed in to show one comic panel at a
time then moved to the next panel on the page (see Fig. 4) through
the same swipe-through operation as the second condition. Par-
ticipants thus read each panel on its own without being able to
view the full page and its layout or its overall structure. The comics
were pre-installed and participants were required to read in the
portrait orientation. The purpose of this special design was to
destruct the page layout to make it difficult for participants to get a
sense of the structure of the text and thus impede them from
forming an effective cognitive map. As each panel was cut out of the
page and seen on its own, its spatial relationships with the whole
page and neighboring panels were disrupted (Liesaputra & Witten,
2012). Therefore, this design was specially employed in this
experiment to examine the effects of the cognitive map
mechanism.
3.3. Participants and procedure
A total of 45 undergraduate students were recruited from a
communication school (n ¼ 34 female, n ¼ 11 male), in exchange
for course credits. Participants ranged from 18 to 34 years of age
with a mean age of 20.98 (SD ¼ 2.92). They were randomly assigned
to one of the three reading conditions with gender approximately
balanced across the conditions. All participants had prior experi-
ence with comic reading; they were also reasonably familiar with
the Apple iPad, as all students had access to iPad devices in the
school's reading room.
Participants were invited to a quite reading room between 9AM
and 5PM. The purpose of choosing this experimental environment
was to provide a natural setting while minimizing possible dis-
tractions. After being greeted, the participants were told the
objective of the study was to read two issues of a comic book series.
Depending on their randomly assigned reading condition, partici-
pants were given a softcover comic book, an Apple iPad with the
comic pre-installed in full-page digital format, or an Apple iPad
with the comic pre-installed in the disrupted view mode.
The participants were instructed to read the comic as they
normally would, with the knowledge that they would be asked to
answer some questions afterwards. It was recorded how long each
participant took to finish reading the two issues. However, to
minimize any influence of time pressure, the participants were not
made aware that they were being timed. After reading the comic,
the participants were given a paper-and-pencil questionnaire
assessing reading comprehension, and a separate paper-and-pencil
questionnaire assessing fatigue and immersion. Finally, partici-
pants were debriefed and thanked for their time.
 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
Fig. 4. The third condition e digital disrupted view - zoomed in on each individual panel.
3.4. Measures
Comprehension. Participants were asked 14 comprehension
questions based on the comic they had read. One question was
open-ended; the rest were multiple-choice. The maximum possible
score on comprehension was 17. On average, participants scored
78.58% of the questions right; the number of correct answers
ranged from 6 to 17, M ¼ 13.38, SD ¼ 2.70.
Time. The length of time it took participants to read both issues
of the comic was measured and recorded. This variable reflected
participants' reading speed; a lower score on this scale indicated a
higher reading speed. Participants finished the reading within
13e30 min, M ¼ 22.13, SD ¼ 3.85.
Fatigue. Fatigue was measured with the following three ques-
tions: “How comfortable did you feel whilst reading the comic
book?” which participants answered from Very uncomfortable (1)
to Very comfortable (10); “What level of eye fatigue did you
experience?” and “What experience or sense of headaches did you
have?” which participants answered on a scale from Not at all (1) to
Extreme (10) (reverse-coded). A higher score on this scale indicated
less fatigue when reading the comics, M ¼ 7.42, SD ¼ 1.49, Cron-
bach's alpha ¼ 0.73.
Immersion. Immersion was an index of the following two
statements ranging from Not at all (1) to Very much (10): “When I
read the comic book, I got really immersed in it,” and “When I read
the comic book, I just could not focus on the story (reverse coded),”
91
M ¼ 8.33, SD ¼ 1.69, Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.82.
4. Results
4.1. Data analysis
Our analyses comprised three steps. First, a normality test was
conducted on each measure. It showed that time (i.e., reading
speed), and fatigue followed normal distributions; therefore, a one-
way ANOVA was conducted for these measures. Second, the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, which is more appropriate for small
sample sizes (n < 50), showed that comprehension and immersion
significantly deviated from a normal distribution (significant values
were less than 0.05). As such, a non-parametric test e the Kruskal-
Wallis ANOVA test e was used to analyze the data. Third, post-hoc
pairwise comparison tests were applied to determine specifically
which groups differed from which other groups. Table 1 presents
descriptive statistics for the variables in the three conditions.
4.2. Primary results
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted on comprehension. The
three-group comparison was not significant. A further two-group
comparison using the Mann-Whitney U test showed that partici-
pants performed significantly better on the comprehension ques-
tions in the paper book condition than in the digital disrupted view
92 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of study variables by condition.
Print Book (n ¼ 15)
M (SD)
Comprehension 14.20 (1.57)
Time (min) 21.20 (4.07)
Fatigue 7.61 (1.52)
Immersion 9.00 (0.79)
condition, z ¼ 1.72, p ¼ 0.045. The results also showed a
marginally significant finding that participants comprehended
better in the digital equivalent condition than in the digital dis-
rupted view condition, z ¼ 1.42, p ¼ 0.078. H1a was supported.
A one-way ANOVA conducted to evaluate differences between
the three reading conditions on reading speed was not significant,
F(2, 42) ¼ 1.22, p ¼ 0.31, partial h2 ¼ 0.06. A further independent t-
test failed to detect significance pairwise differences.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate differences be-
tween the three comic reading conditions on fatigue. Participants
in the paper book and the digital equivalent conditions reported
feelings of fatigue to a lesser degree than those in the disrupted
view condition, F(2, 42) ¼ 5.65, p ¼ 0.007, partial h2 ¼ 0.21. H3a was
supported.
A Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the difference between par-
ticipants' self-reported immersion was significant, c2 (2,
N ¼ 45) ¼ 6.78, p ¼ 0.034. Further pairwise comparisons were
conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. Participants reported a
significantly higher level of immersion in the paper book condition
than in the digital disrupted view condition, z ¼ 2.36, p ¼ 0.009.
Immersion was also significantly higher in the digital equivalent
condition than in the digital disrupted view condition, z ¼ 2.11,
p ¼ 0.018. H4a was supported.
5. Discussion
The present study used a unique stimulus design in an attempt
to examine the potential impacts of two influential mechanisms on
reading. A digital equivalent condition resembling the paper book
was employed to test the impact of the medium materiality
mechanism. A digital disrupted view condition that broke up the
text structure of the reading material was devised to test the impact
of the cognitive map mechanism. Our results indicated that reading
a paper book was similar to reading its digital equivalent, both of
which were better than reading the digital disrupted view version
in terms of reading comprehension, feelings of fatigue, and im-
mersion. In general, our hypotheses based on the cognitive map
mechanism were supported, whereas our hypotheses following the
medium materiality mechanism were not sufficiently evidenced.
According to the cognitive map mechanism, human brains read
by constructing a mental map of the text based on the spatial
placement of the textual information on a page. The extent to
which a text presentation facilitates or impedes the formation of a
cognitive map of the text structure would influence text processing.
We observed that reading with disrupted view, a specific design
that hindered mental map construction, appeared to be a
compromised reading experience in terms of comprehension,
feelings of fatigue, and psychological immersion. When reading the
paper book or its preserved digital equivalent on a screen, the fixed
layout of the text presentation provides effective structural cues (Li
et al., 2013) for forming a spatial representation of each page of the
comic. As such, participants were able to obtain structural knowl-
edge of the text, as well as its content. On the contrary, when
reading the comic in the disrupted view mode, our participants lost
Digital Equivalent (n ¼ 15) Digital Disrupted View (n ¼ 15)
M (SD) M (SD)
13.87 (2.42) 12.07 (3.41)
21.87 (4.36) 23.33 (2.90)
8.14 (0.90) 6.51 (1.55)
8.75 (1.44) 7.23 (2.09)
a “bird's-eye view” of each page. That is, the overall spatial structure
of the panels on the page was missing. Such weakened a structural
relationship between the page and panels, and between the panels
themselves, impeded participants in forming an effective cognitive
map of the comic. This, in turn, impaired reading comprehension.
Our findings are in line with existing literature suggesting that the
lack of an effective cognitive map of the text structure could hurt
reading comprehension (Cataldo & Oakhill, 2000; Li et al., 2013;
Morineau et al., 2005; Payne & Reader, 2006). In addition, our re-
sults showed that the degraded comprehension performance in the
disrupted view condition was not a result of a difference in reading
speed across conditions. While many experiments allocated a time
limit to reading (e.g., Wastlund et al., 2005), we allowed sufficient
time for our participants to complete reading the comic. Our
findings failed to show significant differences in reading speed
across three conditions.
Moreover, while existing research mainly focuses on how the
cognitive map mechanism affects navigational performance, con-
tent recall (Li et al., 2013), and comprehension (Margolin et al.,
2013), our results implied that the influence of cognitive map
construction might extend to readers' feelings of fatigue and their
psychological immersion in a narrative text. Reading a text that
hampers cognitive map construction is likely to require more effort
and is, therefore, more tiring because readers need to constantly
adjust the visual processing of the text to calibrate a structural
representation. This process places a heavy load on readers' eyes
and their mental and physical resources. Furthermore, to enable
high level of immersion in a narrative story world, readers need to
stay focused on the text and should not be occupied by other dis-
tractions. If the cognitive map of the text is not effectively con-
structed, readers are likely to become distracted by their
disorientation within the narrative. Future research could further
investigate how the cognitive map mechanism may influence other
physical and psychological outcomes associated with reading.
Our results showed no significant differences between a paper
book and its digital equivalent that employed an identical text
presentation. Utilizing a digital equivalent version, our study
attempted to isolate the effect of the presentation medium to
investigate the impact of “(im)materiality” of the text. While some
scholars claimed that materiality of the text influences text pro-
cessing (e.g., Mangen, 2008), our results failed to show sufficient
evidence in support of the medium materiality mechanism. No
significant differences were revealed between the paper book and
its digital equivalent condition in terms of participants' scores on
comprehension questions, their self-reported feelings of fatigue, or
their level of immersion. The present findings implied that reading
on a screen could match that of reading from paper if the repre-
sentation of the document on electronic reading devices resemble
that of the printed book. This implication is in line with the belief of
some scholars and designers that the design of electronic reading
devices should follow a book metaphor, so that users can exploit
their familiarity with the established conventions of reading a pa-
per book and interpret the electronic texts more readily and intu-
itively (Barker, Richard, & Benest, 1994; Benest, 1990; Crestani &
 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
Ntioudis, 2001; Henke, 1998; Landoni, Wilson, & Gibb, 2000;
Liesaputra & Witten, 2012). Great effort has been made in the
design of e-reading devices to mimic the appearance and operation
of physical books, such as the e-ink technologies (Heikenfeld,
Drzaic, Yeo, & Koch, 2011), and book-like page-turning on a
touchscreen (Liesaputra & Witten, 2012; Stone, 2008). The current
study suggests that perhaps one of the key aspects for a reading
device to simulate a book is a fixed layout of the text presentation,
which supports the construction of an effective cognitive map.
Future design of reading devices could consider utilizing a book-
like text presentation or explore techniques (e.g., an explicit vi-
sual structure map), to aid readers in the construction of cognitive
maps (e.g., Li et al., 2013).
Limitations and Future Directions. We caution against overly
zealous interpretation of the findings from the present study; it is
not without limitations. First, the reading material used in this
study was a comic book, a type of narrative text to read for
enjoyment and recreational purposes. Comics are characterized by
the use of images combined with text and the form of juxtaposed
sequences of panels of images. It is possible that with other text
types, some of the findings of this study could change. Future
studies could employ a wide variety of texts, such as news articles,
textbook readings, novels, and scientific papers, to further examine
the cognitive map mechanism and the medium materiality
mechanism.
Second, the study relies on a sample of young college students
who have high familiarity with digital reading. While such sample
selection controls for potential moderators, such as computer
competency and familiarity (Kretzschmar et al., 2013), it is worth-
while to investigate a more diverse population to replicate the re-
sults. Future studies could also look at how moderating factors,
such as age and individual differences in working memory capacity
(Wa €stlund, Norlander, & Archer, 2008), might influence people's
reading experiences on screens.
A third limitation is that our reading screen was restricted to the
9.7-inch Apple iPad tablet. We intentionally chose this screen size
to closely match the size of the paper book. We share concerns with
some scholars and designers (Chen, Guimbretiere, Dixon, Lewis, &
Agrawala, 2008; Paczkowski, 2012), and speculate that reading on
small screens (e.g., 7-inch tablets or mobile phones), might produce
a degraded experience. User studies comparing reading experience
on screens with varying sizes are a future direction to provide
practical implications to the reading device industry.
References
American Optometric Association. (2015). Computer vision syndrome. Retrieved
from: http://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/caring-for-your-vision/
protecting-your-vision/computer-vision-syndrome?sso¼y.
Askwall, S. (1985). Computer supported reading vs reading text on paper: A com-
parison of two reading situations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,
22, 425e439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(85)80048-1.
Barker, P., Richard, S., & Benest, I. (1994). Humanecomputer interface design for
electronic books. In Proceedings of the 18th international online information
meeting (pp. 213e225).
Baron, N. (2012). The impact of digital technologies. The end of the Book? Maybe.
Does it Matter? Mobile communication. In Paper presented at mobile internet,
locative media, mobility and place. Aarhus University. March 29e30, 2012.
Belmore, S. (1985). Reading computer presented text. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 23, 12e14.
Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013). E-readers
and visual fatigue. PLoS One, 8(12). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0083676.
Benest, I. D. (1990). A hypertext system with controlled hype. Hypertext: State of the
Art, 52e63.
Bevan, N. (1981). Is there an optimum speed for presenting text on VDUs? Inter-
national Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 14, 59e76.
Cataldo, M. G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient
searchers? An investigation into the effects of text. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 92(4), 791e799.
93
Chen, N., Guimbretiere, F., Dixon, M., Lewis, C., & Agrawala, M. (2008). Navigation
techniques for dual display e-book readers. In Proceedings of CHI’08 (pp.
1779e1788).
Chen, J., Xiao, J., Fan, J., & O'Brien-Strain, E. (2011). PageSpark: An e-magazine reader
with enhanced reading experiences on handheld devices. In Proceedings of the
3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (pp.
149e152). ACM.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Cognitive Science, 14(1990) (Special
issue on structural constraints on cognitive development).
Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of
visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28e71.
Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introductory and survey. IEEE Computers, 20, 17e41.
Conlon, E., & Sanders, M. (2011). The reading rate and comprehension of adults with
impaired reading skills or visual discomfort. Journal of Research in Reading,
34(2), 205e209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01421.x.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In
L. Barkow, & J. Tooby Cosmides (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychol-
ogy and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of
functional organization. In L. Hirschfeld, & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind:
Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 85e116). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Crestani, F., & Ntioudis, S. P. (2001). User centered evaluation of an automatically
constructed Hyper-Textbook. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
3e19.
Cushman, W. H. (1986). Reading from microfiche, VDT and the printed page: Sub-
jective fatigue and performance. Human Factors, 28(1), 63e73.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1616e1641.
DiCarlo, J. J., Zoccolan, D., & Rust, N. C. (2012). How does the brain solve visual object
recognition? Neuron, 73(3), 415e434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuron.2012.01.010.
Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the
empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297e1326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00140139208967394.
Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988). Reading from paper versus reading
from screens. The Computer Journal, 31(5), 457e464.
Eklundh, K. S. (1992). Problems in achieving a global perspective of the text in
computer-based writing. Instructional Science, 21(1), 73e84.
Elm, W. C., & Woods, D. D. (1985). Getting lost: A case study in user interface design.
In Proceedings of the human factors society (pp. 927e931) (Baltimore, Maryland).
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N., & Minuto, A. (1987).
Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a
single-variable explanation. Human Factors, 29(3), 269e299.
Gould, J. D., & Grischkowsky, N. (1984). Doing the same work with hard copy and
cathode-ray tube (CRT) computer terminals. Human Factors, 26(3), 323e337.
Gould, J. D., & Grischkowsky, N. (1986). Does visual angle of a line of characters
affect reading speed? Human Factors, 28(2), 165e173.
Gray, S. H. (1991). Information search with dynamic text vs. paper text: An
empirical comparison. International Journal of ManeMachine Studies, 35,
575e586.
Green, T. D., Perera, R. A., Dance, L. A., & Myers, E. A. (2010). Impact of presentation
mode on recall of written text and numerical information: Hard copy versus
electronic. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 233e242.
Haas, C., & Hansen, W. (1988). Factors which affect reading and writing on personal
computers and on workstations. Communications of the ACM, 31, 1080e1089.
Heikenfeld, J., Drzaic, P., Yeo, J., & Koch, T. (2011). Review paper: A critical review of
the present and future prospects for electronic paper. Journal of the Society for
Information Display, 9(2), 129e156.
Henke, H. (1998). Are electrons better than papyrus? Or can Adobe Acrobat Reader
files replace hardcopy?. In ACM SIGDOC conference on scaling the heights (pp.
29e37).
Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V., & Jiefle, M.
(2011). Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Perfor-
mance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience. In-
ternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(9), 563e570. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.05.002.
Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., & Lee, K. (2012). Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and
players' immersion tendencies on game experience. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 617e623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.007.
Huang, H. (2006). Do print and Web surveys provide the same results? Computers in
Human Behavior, 22, 334e350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071.
Jabr, F. (2013, April). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus
screens. Scientific American. Retrieved from: http://www.scientificamerican.
com/article/reading-paper-screens/.
Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: Effects on
children's reading of informational materials. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 1e19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y.
Kim, H., & Kim, J. (2013). Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers'
reading performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational
Technology, 2(1), 1e10.
94 J. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017) 84e94
Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., &
Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading
effort: Concurrent EEG-Eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and
digital media. PLoS One, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178.
Kurniawan, S. H., & Zaphiris, P. (2001). Reading online or on Paper: Which is faster?.
In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on human computer interaction.
Landoni, M., Wilson, R., & Gibb, F. (2000). From the visual book to the WEB book:
The importance of good design. Research and Advanced Technology for Digital
Libraries, 305e314.
Le Bigot, N., Passerault, J. M., & Olive, T. (2009). Memory for words location in
writing. Psychological Research, 73, 89e97.
Leventhal, L., Teasley, B., Instone, I., Rohlman, D., & Farhat, J. (1993). Sleuthing in
HyperHolmes: An evaluation of using hypertext vs. a book to answer questions.
Behavior and Information Technology, 12, 149e164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01449299308924376.
Li, L., Chen, G., & Yang, S. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book
reading and navigation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 32e39. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003.
Liesaputra, V., & Witten, I. H. (2012). Realistic electronic books. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 588e610.
Lin, P. H., Lin, Y. T., Hwang, S. L., Jeng, S. C., & Liao, C. C. (2008). Effects of anti-glare
surface treatment, ambient illumination and bending curvature on legibility
and visual fatigue of electronic papers. Displays, 29, 25e32.
Mackey, M. (2007). Literacies across Media: Playing the Text (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Mangen, A. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: Haptics and immersion. Journal of
Research in Reading, 31(4), 404e419.
Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in the iPad: Narrative engagement on paper
and tablet. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(2), 150e177.
Mangen, A., Robinet, P., Olivier, G., & Velay, J. L. (2014). Mystery story reading in
pocket print book and on chronological events memory. In Paper presented at
the international society for the empirical study of literature and media, Turin,
Italy.
Mangen, A., & Schilhab, T. (2012). An embodied view of reading: Theoretical con-
siderations, empirical findings, and educational implications. In S. Matre, &
A. Skaftun (Eds.), Skriv! Les! (pp. 285e300). Trondheim: Akademika.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper
versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International
Journal of Educational Research, 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.
Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer
screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media plat-
forms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512e519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
acp.2930.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia
learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 93, 187e198.
Mayes, D. K., Sims, V. K., & Koonce, J. M. (2001). Comprehension and workload
differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 28, 367e378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00043-9.
McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge
of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors, 40(1), 18e27.
Mercer, C., & Mercer, A. (1993). Teaching students with learning problems, columbus.
Ohio: Merrill.
Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41(3), 118e128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00469.x.
Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM
Computing Surveys, 19, 329e358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/45075.46162.
Retrieved from:.
Moore, D., & Zabrucky, K. (1995). Adult age differences in comprehension and
memory for computer-displayed and printed text. Educational Gerontology,
21(2), 139e150.
Morineau, T., Blanche, C., Tobin, L., & Gue
guen, N. (2005). The emergence of the
contextual role of the e-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and
functional analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62,
329e348.
Murphy, N. (1997). A multisensory vs. Conventional approach to teaching spelling.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. New Jersey, USA: Kean College.
Muter, P., Latremouille, S. A., Treurniet, W. C., & Beam, P. (1982). Extended reading of
continuous text on television screens. Human factors, 24(5), 501e508.
Muter, P., & Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and
books: The paperless office revisited. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10(4),
257e266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449299108924288.
Nakamura, K., Kuo, W. J., Pegado, F., Cohen, L., Tzeng, O. J., & Dehaene, S. (2012).
Universal brain systems for recognizing word shapes and handwriting gestures
during reading. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109(50),
20762e20767. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217749109.
Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a Book: The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
Norman, D. (2002). The design of everyday things. The MIT Press.
View publication stats
Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2003). VDT versus paper-based text: Reply to Mayes,
Sims and Koonce. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31, 411e423.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00027-1.
O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line docu-
ments. In Proceedings of SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing sys-
tems (pp. 335e342).
Paczkowski, J. (2012). Rumor mill ramps up production of cheaper and smaller iPads.
Retrieved from: http://allthingsd.com/20120301/rumor-mill-ramps-up-
production-of-cheaper-and-smaller-ipads/.
Payne, S., & Reader, W. (2006). Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line
texts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(5), 461e474. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003.
Pearce, B. G. (1984). Health hazards of VDTs? New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J. Y., & Thunin, O. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text
reading and revising. International Journal of HumaneComputer Studies, 47(4),
565e589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0145.
Pynte, J., Kennedy, A., & Ducrot, S. (2004). The influence of parafoveal typographical
errors on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
16, 178e202.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1971). Incidental memory for location of information in text. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 608e613.
Scharinger, C., Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2015). Pupil Dilation and EEG alpha
frequency band power reveal load on executive functions for link-selection
processes during text reading. PLoS One, 10(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0130608.
Shams, L., & Seitz, A. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends Cognitive
Sciences, 12(11), 411e417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.006.
Sherry, D. F., & Schacter, D. L. (1987). The evolution of multiple memory systems.
Psychological Review, 94, 439e454.
Simpson, A., & McKnight, C. (1990). Navigation in Hypertext: Structural cues and
mental maps. In R. McAleese, & C. Green (Eds.), Hypertext: State of the art (pp.
74e83). Oxford: Intellect Book Ltd.
Smedshammar, H., Frenckner, K., Nordquist, C., & Romberger, S. (1989). Why is the
difference in reading speed when reading from VDUs and from paper bigger for
fast readers than for slow readers?. In Paper presented at WWDU 1989, second
international scientific conference, Montreal.
Stanton, N., Correia, A. P., & Dias, P. (2000). Efficacy of a map on search, orientation
and access behaviour in a hypermedia system. Computers and Education, 35,
263e279.
Stone, N. (2008). The e-reader industry: Replacing the book or enhancing the reader
experience? Design of Electronic Text, 1(1).
Tanner, M. J. (2014). Digital vs. print: Reading comprehension and the future of the
book. SJSU School of Information Student Research Journal, 4(2). Retrieved from:
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/slissrj/vol4/iss2/6.
Thayer, A., Lee, C. P., Hwang, L. H., Sales, H., Sen, P., & Dalal, N. (2011). The imposition
and superimposition of digital reading technology: The academic potential of e-
readers. In Proceedings of CHI ’11 (pp. 2917e2926). ACM.
Waller, R. H. (1985). Skimming, scanning and browsing: Problems of studying from
electronic text. In IEEE computing and control division colloquium on paper versus
screen: The human factors issues digest No. 1985/80.
Wa€stlund, E. (2007). Experimental studies of human-computer interaction: Working
memory and mental workload in complex cognition. Gøteborg: Gothenburg
University. Retrieved from: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/4693/1/
gupea_2077_4693_1.pdf.
Wa€stlund, Norlander, & & Archer. (2008). The effect of page layout on mental
workload: A dual-task experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3),
1229e1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.001.
Wa€stlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2005). Effects of VDT and
paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psycho-
logical and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 377e394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.007.
Withers, N. (2013). Reading devices - comprende? Can the device that you read
from really change your reading speed and comprehension? Optometry Today,
53(15).
Witmer, B., & Singer, M. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A
presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3),
225e240.
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain.
New York: Harper Perennial.
Wright, P., & Lickorish, A. (1983). Proof-reading texts on screen and paper. Behaviour
and Information Technology, 2(3), 227e235.
Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012). Eye movement analysis of reading from
computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic Physiological Optics,
32, 390e396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00930.x.
Zhang, H., Yan, H.-M., Kendrick, K., & Li, C. (2012). Both lexical and Non-Lexical
characters are processed during saccadic eye movements. PLoS One, 7(9).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046.
Ziefle, M. (1998). Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Human Factors,
40, 554e568.