Visual Distractions Effects on Reading in Digital Environments: A Comparison of First and Second English Language Readers

ABSTRACT

Reading in digital environments can be very distracting. Using eye-tracking technology, we investigate if text readability affects distraction rate, eye movements, and reading comprehension in a visually distracting digital environment. We compared an easy-to-read text and a hard-to-read text on both first language English (L1) readers and second language English (L2) readers. Text readability was measured using the standard readability formulas such as the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. Results show that text readability does cause different eye movements and produce reading comprehension results that deviate from what is normally expected. Readers are affected more by the distractions when reading easy-to-read text compared to when reading hard-to-read text. Furthermore, L2 readers are affected more than L1 readers. These findings can be used in the design of eLearning materials when distractions cannot be overcome.

References

1. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 2 (1999), 127--168.
2. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 1 (2007), 153--160.
3. Bernard, M., & Mills, M. So, what size and type of font should I use on my website. Usability news, 2, 2 (2000), 1--5.
4. Beymer, D., Russell, D., & Orton, P. An eye tracking study of how font size and type influence online reading. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction - Volume 2, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 2, (2008) 15--18.
5. Beymer, D., & Russell, D. M. WebGazeAnalyzer: a system for capturing and analyzing web reading behavior using eye gaze. Paper presented at the CHI'05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. (2005), 1913--1916.
6. Bohn, R. E., & Short, J. E. How Much Information?: 2009 Report on American Consumers: University of California, San Diego, Global Information Industry Center. (2009).
7. Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54, 4 (2010), 927--931.
8. Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 9 (2011), 527--534.
9. Buscher, G., Dengel, A. and Elst, L. V. Eye Movements As Implicit Relevance Feedback. CHI '08 Extended Abstracts On Human Factors In Computing Systems. Florence, Italy: ACM. (2008), 2991--2996.
10. Campbell, C. S. and Maglio, P. P. A Robust Algorithm For Reading Detection. Proceedings Of The 2001 Workshop On Perceptive User Interfaces, ACM, (2001), 1--7.
11. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning: John Wiley & Sons. (2011).
12. Copeland, L. & Gedeon, T.. Effect of presentation on reading behaviour. Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design, ACM, (2014), 230--239
13. Copeland, L. & Gedeon, T.. What are You Reading Most: Attention in eLearning. Procedia Computer Science, (2014), 39, 67--74.
14. Dednam, E., Brown, R., Wium, D., and Blignaut, P. The Effects of Mother Tongue and Text Difficulty on Gaze Behaviour while Reading Afrikaans Text. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Southern African Institute for Computer Scientist and Information Technologists Annual Conference 2014 on SAICSIT 2014 Empowered by Technology, Centurion, South Africa. (2014), 334.
15. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in human behavior, 23, 3 (2007), 1616--1641.
16. Dillon, A. Reading From Paper Versus Screens: A Critical Review Of The Empirical Literature. Ergonomics, (1992) 35, 1297--1326.
17. Dillon, A. Designing Usable Electronic Text: Ergonomic Aspects Of Human Information Usage, CRC Press (2004)
18. Dillon, A. & Gabbard, R. Hypermedia As An Educational Technology: A Review Of The Quantitative Research Literature On Learner Comprehension, Control, And Style. Review Of Educational Research, (1998) 68, 322--349.
19. Frazier, L. and Rayner, K. Making And Correcting Errors During Sentence Comprehension: Eye Movements In The Analysis Of Structurally Ambiguous Sentences. Cognitive Psychology, (1982), 14, 178--210.
20. Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. Distractions, distractions: does instant messaging affect college students' performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 1 (2009), 51--53.
21. Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., Haga, A., Holmgren, M., & Söörqvist, P. Effects of speech on proofreading: can task-engagement manipulations shield against distraction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 1 (2014a), 69.
22. Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., Hellman, A., Hellström, I., & Söörqvist, P. A shield against distraction. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 1 (2014b), 31--36.
23. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 3 (1998), 414.
24. Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient education and counseling, 61, 2 (2006), 173--190.
25. Hyönä, J. The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 2 (2010), 172--176.
26. Hyona, J., Lorch Jr, R. F. and Rinck, M. Chapter 16 - Eye Movement Measures To Study Global Text Processing. In: Hyona, J., Radach, R., H. Deubela2 - J. Hyona, R. R. & Deubel, H. (Eds.) The Mind's Eye. Amsterdam: North-Holland. (2003).
27. Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 5 (2011), 275--280.
28. Kang, H. Understanding online reading through the eyes of first and second language readers: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 73 (2014), 1--8.
29. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. Facebook®® and academic performance. Computers in human behavior, 26, 6 (2010), 1237--1245.
30. Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4, 1 (2000), 6--14.
31. Loizides, F. & Buchanan, G. R. Performing Document Triage On Small Screen Devices. Part 1: Structured Documents. Proceedings Of The Third Symposium On Information Interaction In Context, ACM, (2010), 341--346.
32. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brøønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(0), 61--68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
33. Mansfield, J. S., Legge, G. E., & Bane, M. C. (1996). Psychophysics of reading. XV: Font effects in normal and low vision. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 37(8), 1492--1501.
34. Marshall, C. C. & Bly, S. Turning The Page On Navigation. Digital Libraries, 2005. JCDL'05. Proceedings Of The 5th ACM/IEEE-Cs Joint Conference On, IEEE, (2005), 225--234.
35. Mayer, R. E. Research-based principles for the design of instructional messages: The case of multimedia explanations. Document design, 1, 1 (1999), 7--19.
36. Mayer, R. E. Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 2 (2010), 167--171. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012
37. 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(1), 187.
38. McKay, D. Jump To The Left (And Then A Step To The Right): Reading Practices Within Academic Ebooks. Proceedings Of The 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. Canberra, Australia: ACM. (2011), 202--210
39. O'Hara, K. & Sellen, A. A Comparison Of Reading Paper And On-Line Documents. Proceedings Of The ACM SigCHI Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems. Atlanta, Georgia, Usa: ACM. (1997), 335--342.
40. Poole, A., & Ball, L. Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research: Current Status and Future Prospects. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Pennsylvania: Idea Group, Inc. (2005).
41. Rayner, K. Eye Movements In Reading And Information Processing: 20 Years Of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 3 (1998), 372--422.
42. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J. and Ashby, J. Eye Movements As Reflections Of Comprehension Processes In Reading. Scientific Studies Of Reading, 10, (2006), 241--255.
43. Rho, Y. J., & Gedeon, T. D. Academic articles on the web: reading patterns and formats. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 2 (2000), 219--240.
44. Rockinson- Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students' learning. Computers & Education, 63, 0 (2013), 259--266. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022
45. Salvucci, D. D., & Goldberg, J. H. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. Proceedings of the 2000 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, (2000) 71--78.
46. Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & cognition, 34, 2 (2006), 344--355.
47. Shibata, H. & Takano, K. Reading from paper versus reading from a touch-based tablet device in proofreading. Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. London, United Kingdom, IEEE Press, (2014), 433--434.
48. Sörqvist, P., Halin, N., & Hygge, S. Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1 (2010), 67--76.
49. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science, 333, 6043 (2011), 776--778. doi: 10.1126/science.1207745
50. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in human behavior, 28, 5 (2012), 1618--1625. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.026
51. Takano, K., Shibata, H., Ichino, J., Tomonori, H. & Tano, S. I.. Microscopic analysis of document handling while reading paper documents to improve digital reading device. Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, ACM, (2014), 559--567.
52. The Neilsen Company. (2013). Nielsen Mobile Consumer Survey of 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/uk/en/documents/Mobile-Consumer-Report-2013.pdf
53. Underwood, G., Hubbard, A. and Wilkinson, H. Eye Fixations Predict Reading Comprehension: The Relationships Between Reading Skill, Reading Speed, And Visual Inspection. Language And Speech, 33 (1990), 69--81.
54. Rho, Y. J., & Gedeon, T. D. Academic articles on the web: reading patterns and formats. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 2 (2000), 219--240.
55. Rockinson- Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students' learning. Computers & Education, 63, 0 (2013), 259--266. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022
56. Salvucci, D. D., & Goldberg, J. H. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. Proceedings of the 2000 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, (2000) 71--78.
57. Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & cognition, 34, 2 (2006), 344--355.
58. Sörqvist, P., Halin, N., & Hygge, S. Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1 (2010), 67--76.
59. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science, 333, 6043 (2011), 776--778. doi: 10.1126/science.1207745
60. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in human behavior, 28, 5 (2012), 1618--1625. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.026
61. Underwood, G., Hubbard, A. and Wilkinson, H. Eye Fixations Predict Reading Comprehension: The Relationships Between Reading Skill, Reading Speed, And Visual Inspection. Language And Speech, 33 (1990), 69--81.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing