Antonio Miguel Miranda; Eduardo J Nunes-Pereira; Karthikeyan Baskaran; Antonio Filipe Macedo

doi:10.5384/sjovs.vol11i1p1-5

Authors

Antonio Miguel Miranda
Eduardo J Nunes-Pereira
Karthikeyan Baskaran
Antonio Filipe Macedo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5384/sjovs.vol11i1p1-5

Keywords:

Reading, displays, reading, eye tracking glasses, digital eye strain

Abstract

This study investigated the use of eye-tracking glasses to monitor visual behaviour when reading from electronic devices and paper in free-viewing conditions.

The Tobii-Pro-Glasses were used to monitor 20 subjects with normal vision during reading tasks. Reading was performed in a smartphone, computer, paper and tablet. Texts from the IReST-test were read in devices in a random order. Participants read one text in each device and then repeated the same task 1 hour later; in total each participant read eight different texts. The sequence for the devices was randomized.

We found differences between devices for saccade amplitude, fixation duration, convergence distance and pupil size. Reading speed between computer and tablet was slightly different (8 words-per-minute) and pupil size reduced up to 20% in electronic devices compared to print.

Behavioural changes observed whilst reading from different devices may reflect an attempt from readers to optimize performance. The need to maintain visual performance under different visual condition may lead to increased visual symptoms. Eye-tracking glasses could be a valuable tool to investigate visual aspects of digital strain.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Argiles, M., Cardona, G., Perez-Cabre, E., & Rodriguez, M. (2015). Blink Rate and Incomplete Blinks in Six Different Controlled Hard-Copy and Electronic Reading Conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 56(11), 6679-6685. doi:10.1167/iovs.15-16967

Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull, 91(2), 276-292.

Blehm, C., Vishnu, S., Khattak, A., Mitra, S., & Yee, R. W. (2005). Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv Ophthalmol, 50(3), 253-262. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.02.008

Collier, J. D., & Rosenfield, M. (2011). Accommodation and convergence during sustained computer work. Optometry, 82(7), 434-440. doi:10.1016/j.optm.2010.10.013

Ferreira, M., Pereira, P. A., Parreira, M., Sousa, I., Figueiredo, J., Cerqueira, J. J., & Macedo, A. F. (2017). Using endogenous saccades to characterize fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord, 14, 16-22. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2017.01.014

Hayes, J. R., Sheedy, J. E., Stelmack, J. A., & Heaney, C. A. (2007). Computer use, symptoms, and quality of life. Optom Vis Sci, 84(8), 738-744. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e31812f7546

Hossain, E. M. A. (2016). Eye Movement Event Detection for Wearable Eye Trackers. (Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)) Student thesis), Linköpings Universitet, Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-129616 DiVA database.

Jainta, S., Blythe, H. I., Nikolova, M., Jones, M. O., & Liversedge, S. P. (2015). A comparative analysis of vertical and horizontal fixation disparity in sentence reading. Vision Research, 110, 118-127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.008

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Miyake, A. (2003). Neuroindices of cognitive workload: Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(1-2), 56-88. doi:10.1080/14639220210159735

Kochurova, O., Portello, J. K., & Rosenfield, M. (2015). Is the 3× reading rule appropriate for computer users? Displays, 38, 38-43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2015.02.001

Kopper, M., Mayr, S., & Buchner, A. (2016). Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference? Ergonomics, 59(5), 615-632. doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757

Macedo, A. F., Crossland, M. D., & Rubin, G. S. (2008). The effect of retinal image slip on peripheral visual acuity. J Vis, 8(14), 16.11-11. doi:10.1167/8.14.16

Macedo, A. F., & Silva, C. P. L. d. (2013). Reading speed in the International Reading Speed Texts by native portuguese readers (IReST). University of Minho. Retrieved from http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/42099

Myrberg, C., & Wiberg, N. (2015). Screen vs. paper: what is the difference for reading and learning? Insights, 28(2), 49-54. doi:http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.236

Ramulu, P. Y., Swenor, B. K., Jefferys, J. L., & Rubin, G. S. (2013). Description and validation of a test to evaluate sustained silent reading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 54(1), 673-680. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-10617

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull, 124(3), 372-422.

Rosenfield, M. (2011). Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 31(5), 502-515. doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00834.x

Rosenfield, M., Jahan, S., Nunez, K., & Chan, K. (2015). Cognitive demand, digital screens and blink rate. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 403-406. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.073

Sheppard, A. L., & Wolffsohn, J. S. (2018). Digital eye strain: prevalence, measurement and amelioration. BMJ Open Ophthalmology, 3(1). doi:10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000146

Tobii. (2017). Tobii Pro Glasses 2. Retrieved from https://www.tobiipro.com/product-listing/tobii-pro-glasses-2/

Trauzettel-Klosinski, S., & Dietz, K. (2012). Standardized assessment of reading performance: the New International Reading Speed Texts IReST. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 53(9), 5452-5461. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8284

Vorstius, C., Radach, R., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Eye movements in developing readers: A comparison of silent and oral sentence reading. Visual Cognition, 22(3-4), 458-485. doi:10.1080/13506285.2014.881445

Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012). Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 32(5), 390-396. doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00930.x