Cited by 523Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesReading and Literacy DevelopmentGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology

Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature

Open access
DILLON, ANDREW·1992·Ergonomics

Abstract

The advent of widespread computer use in general and increasing developments in the domain of hypertext in particular have increased awareness of the issue of reading electronic text. To date the literature has been dominated by reference to work on overcoming speed deficits resulting from poor image quality but an emerging literature reveals a more complex set of variables at work. The present review considers the differences between the media in terms of outcomes and processes of reading and concludes that single variable explanations are insufficient to capture the range of issues involved in reading from screens.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140139208967394

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Chapman, L. J. and Hoffman, M. (1977) Developing Fluent Reading. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  2. Helander, M. G., Billingsley, P. A. & Schurick, J. M. (1984) An evaluation of human factors research on visual display terminals in the workplace. Human Factors Review, Chapter 3, 55 -129.
  3. Milner,N. (1988)A review of human performance and preference with different input devices to computer systems, in: D.Jones and R.Winder (eds.) People and Computers IV, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Pearce, B. (Ed) Health Hazards of VDUs? Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
  5. Richardson, J., Dillon, A. and McKnight, C. (1989) The effect of window size on reading and manipulating electronic text. In E. Megaw (ed.) Contemporary Ergonomics 1989. London: Taylor and Francis.
  6. Shulman, H. Shute, S. and Weissmann, O. (1985) Icons versus names as command designators in text editing. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society. New York: IEEE, 268-272.
  7. Simpson, A. (1989) Navigation in hypertext: design issues. Paper presented at International OnLine Conference '89, London, December.
  8. Smedshammar, H., Frenckner, K. ,Nordquist, C. and 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? Paper presented at WWDU 1989, Second International Scientific Conference, Montreal.
  9. Smith, A. and Savory, M. (1989) Effects and after-effects of working at a VDU: Investigation of the influence of personal variables. In: E.D. Megaw (ed.) Contemporary Ergonomics 1989. London:Taylor and Francis.
  10. Waller, R. (1984) Designing government forms: a case study Information Design Journal 4, 36-57.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DILLON, A.
Affiliations
Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
DILLON, ANDREW
Venue
Ergonomics
Published
1992-10
Volume
35
Issue
10
Pages
1297-1326
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
OpenAlex
W2109515547
Cited by
523
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 25
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Keywords
hypertext, reading speed, image quality, reading process, reading outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review