Reading Traits for Dynamically Presented Texts: Comparison of the Optimum Reading Rates of Dynamic Text Presentation and the Reading Rates of Static Text Presentation

With the growth in digital display technologies, dynamic text presentation is used widely in every day life, such as in electric advertisements and tickers on TV programs. Unlike static text reading, little is known about the basic characteristics underlying reading dynamically presented texts. Two experiments were performed to investigate this. Experiment 1 examined the optimum rate of dynamic text presentation in terms of a readability and favorability. This experiment demonstrated that, when the rate of text presentation was changed, there was an optimum presentation rate (around 6 letters/s in our condition) regardless of difficulty level. This indicates that the presentation rate of dynamic texts can affect the impression of reading. In Experiment 2, to elucidate the traits underlying dynamic text reading, we measured the reading speeds of silent and trace reading among the same participants and compared them with the optimum presentation rate obtained in Experiment 1. The results showed that the optimum rate was slower than with silent reading and faster than with trace reading, and, interestingly, the individual optimum rates of dynamic text presentation were correlated with the speeds of both silent and trace reading. In other words, the readers who preferred a fast rate in dynamic text presentation would also have a high reading speed for silent and trace reading.

[1]  Kazushi Maruya,et al.  "Yu bi yomu": interactive reading of dynamic text , 2012, ACM Multimedia.

[2]  Wesley P. Wong,et al.  The effect of integration time on fluctuation measurements: calibrating an optical trap in the presence of motion blur. , 2006, Optics express.

[3]  Mary C. Potter,et al.  Rapid serial visual presentation (rsvp): a method for studying language processing , 2018 .

[4]  Jennifer Little Kegler,et al.  E‐readers, Computer Screens, or Paper: Does Reading Comprehension Change Across Media Platforms? , 2013 .

[5]  Thierry Baccino,et al.  Rapid serial visual presentation in reading: The case of Spritz , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Don’t Believe What You Read (Only Once) , 2014, Psychological science.

[7]  M. Just,et al.  A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorders: making normal adults perform like aphasic patients , 1994 .

[8]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  J. Woolley,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  Gary S. Rubin,et al.  Reading without saccadic eye movements , 1992, Vision Research.

[11]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal processing in reading , 2011, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[12]  Mark Nieuwenstein,et al.  Whole Report versus Partial Report in RSVP Sentences. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[13]  Kenneth I. Forster,et al.  Perceiving the Structure and Meaning of Sentences. , 1971 .

[14]  B. Breitmeyer,et al.  Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  Pierluigi Zoccolotti,et al.  Perceptual and Cognitive Factors Imposing “Speed Limits” on Reading Rate: A Study with the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation , 2016, PloS one.

[16]  Toshiro Ishida,et al.  The effect of the number of characters on the reading rate of character strings moving horizontally on a CRT. , 1993 .

[17]  John M Henderson,et al.  Individual differences in the perceptual span during reading: Evidence from the moving window technique , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension and Memory , 1999 .

[19]  J. Juola,et al.  Visual search and reading of rapid serial presentations of letter strings, words, and text. , 1982 .

[20]  B G Breitmeyer,et al.  Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing. , 1976, Psychological review.

[21]  Daniela Zambarbieri,et al.  Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books , 2012, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[22]  M. Osaka,et al.  Individual differences in working memory during reading with and without parafoveal information: a moving-window study. , 2002, The American journal of psychology.

[23]  An-Hsiang Wang,et al.  Effects of display type, speed, and text/background colour-combination of dynamic display on users' comprehension for dual-task in reading static and dynamic display information , 2004 .

[24]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Psychology of Reading , 2012 .

[25]  V. M. Holmes,et al.  Perceptual Complexity and Underlying Sentence Structure , 1972 .

[26]  Chien-Hsiung Chen,et al.  Effects of RSVP display design on visual performance in accomplishing dual tasks with small screens , 2007 .

[27]  Keith Rayner,et al.  The gaze-contingent moving window in reading: Development and review , 2014 .

[28]  Kenneth I. Forster,et al.  Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity , 1970 .

[29]  Alexandra B. Proaps,et al.  The effects of text presentation format on reading comprehension and video game performance , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..