Eye movements, convergence distance and pupil-size when reading from smartphone, computer, print and tablet
Keywords:Reading, displays, reading, eye tracking glasses, digital eye strain
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.
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
How to Cite
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.