Introduction

A recent report by Perrin (2022)Perrin, A. (2022, January 6). Three-in-ten Americans now read e-books. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://​www​.pewresearch​.org​/short​-reads​/2022​/01​/06​/three​-in​-ten​-americans​-now​-read​-e​-books/Perrin, A. (2022, January 6). Three-in-ten Americans now read e-books. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://​www​.pewresearch​.org​/short​-reads​/2022​/01​/06​/three​-in​-ten​-americans​-now​-read​-e​-books/ indicates that at least three in ten people prefer digital books. Digital books only capture a market share of 10–20% of book sales (Milliot, 2014Milliot, J. (2014) E-books remain third: print formats outsell digital in the first half of 2014. Publishers Weekly, 261 (39), 6–7. https://​www​.publishersweekly​.com​/pw​/by​-topic​/industry​-news​/bookselling​/article​/64170​-e​-books​-remain​-third​.htmlMilliot, J. (2014) E-books remain third: print formats outsell digital in the first half of 2014. Publishers Weekly, 261(39), 6–7. https://​www​.publishersweekly​.com​/pw​/by​-topic​/industry​-news​/bookselling​/article​/64170​-e​-books​-remain​-third​.html; Rainie & Duggan, 2012Rainie, L., & Duggan, M. (2012) E-book reading jumps; print book reading declines. Pew Internet & American Life Project, December, 27 . Retrieved from: http://​hartfordinfo​.org​/issues​/wsd​/Literacy​/PIP​_Reading%20and%20ebooks​_12​.27​.pdfRainie, L., & Duggan, M. (2012) E-book reading jumps; print book reading declines. Pew Internet & American Life Project, December, 27. Retrieved from: http://​hartfordinfo​.org​/issues​/wsd​/Literacy​/PIP​_Reading%20and%20ebooks​_12​.27​.pdf), despite a gradual fall in printed book sales in the past decade (Desilver, 2014DeSilver, D. (2014) Overall Book Readership Stable, But E-Books Becoming More Popular; Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://​www​.pewresearch​.org​/short​-reads​/2014​/01​/21​/overall​-book​-readership​-stable​-but​-e​-books​-becoming​-more​-popular/. Accessed on 21 May 2024.DeSilver, D. (2014) Overall Book Readership Stable, But E-Books Becoming More Popular; Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://​www​.pewresearch​.org​/short​-reads​/2014​/01​/21​/overall​-book​-readership​-stable​-but​-e​-books​-becoming​-more​-popular/. Accessed on 21 May 2024.; Tanner, 2014Tanner, M. J. (2014) Digital vs. print: Reading comprehension and the future of the book. School of Information Student Research Journal, 4 (2). Tanner, M. J. (2014) Digital vs. print: Reading comprehension and the future of the book. School of Information Student Research Journal, 4(2). ). These statistics have not changed drastically since the earlier report by Rainie and Duggan (2012)Rainie, L., & Duggan, M. (2012) E-book reading jumps; print book reading declines. Pew Internet & American Life Project, December, 27 . Retrieved from: http://​hartfordinfo​.org​/issues​/wsd​/Literacy​/PIP​_Reading%20and%20ebooks​_12​.27​.pdfRainie, L., & Duggan, M. (2012) E-book reading jumps; print book reading declines. Pew Internet & American Life Project, December, 27. Retrieved from: http://​hartfordinfo​.org​/issues​/wsd​/Literacy​/PIP​_Reading%20and%20ebooks​_12​.27​.pdf. Initial user experience reports (Tenopir et al., 2012Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D. W. (2012) Article and book reading patterns of scholars: Findings for publishers. Learned publishing, 25 (4), 279–291. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D. W. (2012) Article and book reading patterns of scholars: Findings for publishers. Learned publishing, 25(4), 279–291. ) showed that users’ reading time on digital screens is similar to that of printed books. Other reports point towards a higher user engagement with digital books and a consequent acceptance of digital books into the mainstream (Dobler, 2015Dobler, E. (2015) E-textbooks: A personalised learning experience or a digital distraction? Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 58 (6), 482–491. Dobler, E. (2015) E-textbooks: A personalised learning experience or a digital distraction? Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 58(6), 482–491. ; Paczkowski, 2013Paczkowski, J. (2013) Apple’s iTunes U Hits One Billion Downloads. Retrieved from: http://​allthingsd​.com​/20130228​/apples​-itunes​-u​-hits​-1​-billion​-downloads/. Accessed 21 May 2024.Paczkowski, J. (2013) Apple’s iTunes U Hits One Billion Downloads. Retrieved from: http://​allthingsd​.com​/20130228​/apples​-itunes​-u​-hits​-1​-billion​-downloads/. Accessed 21 May 2024.). This has been possible due to the development of better digital tools coupled with a change in reading behaviour in readers (Labrecque et al., 2013Labrecque, L. I., vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T. P., & Hofacker, C. F. (2013) Consumer power: Evolution in the digital age. Journal of interactive marketing, 27 (4), 257–269. Labrecque, L. I., vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T. P., & Hofacker, C. F. (2013) Consumer power: Evolution in the digital age. Journal of interactive marketing, 27(4), 257–269. ; Tyner, 2014Tyner, K. (2014) Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Routledge. Tyner, K. (2014) Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Routledge. ; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010) New technology and digital worlds: Analysing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education, 34 (1), 179–225. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010) New technology and digital worlds: Analysing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education, 34(1), 179–225. ). Reading behaviour refers to how readers interact with the text and approach the act of reading. It encompasses a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and physical processes measured at skill level, motivation, personal preferences, purpose of reading, medium of reading, et cetera (McLaughlin, 2012McLaughlin, M. (2012), Reading Comprehension: What Every Teacher Needs to Know. The Reading Teacher, 65 (7), 432–440. McLaughlin, M. (2012), Reading Comprehension: What Every Teacher Needs to Know. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 432–440. ).

Recent research (Liao et al., 2024Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28 (1), 43–55. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 43–55. ) highlights the potential disadvantages of digital reading platforms, particularly in relation to metacognitive regulation and comprehension. Liao et al. (2024)Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28 (1), 43–55. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 43–55. emphasise that digital reading environments promote more shallow processing and reduced metacognitive regulation, especially with complex, time-sensitive texts. This phenomenon, referred to as the “screen inferiority effect”, suggests that readers engage less deeply with digital texts, leading to potentially inferior comprehension outcomes.

Digital or electronic books11.We refer to e-books and digital books synonymously in this manuscript. (e-books) are digital versions of physical books. E-books were introduced in the early 1970s. However, the concept of digital books and electronic text dates back even further (Mendieta, 2021Mendieta, E. (2021) Embracing a culture of lifelong learning: from the paperback to the ebook: lifelong learning in the age of the internet (Document No. UIL/2021/PI/H/6). https://​unesdoc​.unesco​.org​/ark:​/48223​/pf0000377816Mendieta, E. (2021) Embracing a culture of lifelong learning: from the paperback to the ebook: lifelong learning in the age of the internet (Document No. UIL/2021/PI/H/6). https://​unesdoc​.unesco​.org​/ark:​/48223​/pf0000377816). Depending on the device being used to read, it can be said that there are two categories of digital books. The first category is digital books intended to be used with dedicated e-readers such as Kindle Reader, Cybook Opus, Nook, et cetera. The second category of digital books is non-dedicated e-books, which can be read on any device, such as a tablet, personal computer, smartphone, et cetera. The evolution of these devices has continuously influenced reading behaviours (Leu et al., 2013Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2013) Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). International Reading Association.Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2013) Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). International Reading Association.), making it necessary to reassess their effects on cognitive and visual processing (Liao et al., 2024Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28 (1), 43–55. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 43–55. ).

Modern-day digital reading tools and e-books augment the reading process more than traditional paper-based books by providing numerous additional features. These features include searching, correcting errors, annotation, hyperlinking, multimedia integration, and more. That being said, there are a few disadvantages of these digital books that have not been fully addressed, such as making notes, highlighting, turning pages back and forth. Additionally, key sensory elements such as tactility or haptic feedback (Mangen & Kuiken, 2014Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014) Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific study of literature, 4 (2), 150–177. Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014) Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific study of literature, 4(2), 150–177. ) and bibliosmia — the smell of books (Driscoll & Squires, 2018Driscoll, B., & Squires, C. (2018) ‘Oh look, a Ferry’; or the smell of paper books. TXT, (5), 64–70. https://​openaccess​.leidenuniv​.nl​/handle​/1887​/28849Driscoll, B., & Squires, C. (2018) ‘Oh look, a Ferry’; or the smell of paper books. TXT, (5), 64–70. https://​openaccess​.leidenuniv​.nl​/handle​/1887​/28849) — are lost in digital formats, which may affect overall reading engagement (Spence, 2020Spence, C. (2020) The Multisensory Experience of Handling and Reading Books. Multisensory Research, 33 (8), 902–928. Spence, C. (2020) The Multisensory Experience of Handling and Reading Books. Multisensory Research, 33(8), 902–928. ; Cuiñas & Augusto, 2022Cuiñas, A. A. F., & Augusto, V. P. (2022) The Smell of Printed Books: A Qualitative Comparison between Printed and Digital Formats. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6 (1), 214–225. Cuiñas, A. A. F., & Augusto, V. P. (2022) The Smell of Printed Books: A Qualitative Comparison between Printed and Digital Formats. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6(1), 214–225. ).

Researchers have systematically conducted experiments which try to compare the reading behaviour across digital tools and paper-based reading (Baron et al., 2017Baron, N. S., Calixte, R. M., & Havewala, M. (2017) The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34 (5), 590–604. Baron, N. S., Calixte, R. M., & Havewala, M. (2017) The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 590–604. ; de Jong & Bus, 2002De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2002) Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: an experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (1), 145–155. De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2002) Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: an experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 145–155. ; Gallant et al., 2008Gallant, D. T., Seniuk, A. G., & Vertegaal, R. (2008) Towards more paper-like input: flexible input devices for foldable interaction styles. Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 283–286. Gallant, D. T., Seniuk, A. G., & Vertegaal, R. (2008) Towards more paper-like input: flexible input devices for foldable interaction styles. Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 283–286. ; Kerr & Symons, 2006Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006) Computerised presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and writing, 19 (1), 1–19. Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006) Computerised presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and writing, 19(1), 1–19. ; Kong et al., 2018Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018) Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018) Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. ; Liao et al., 2008Liao, C., Guimbretière, F., Hinckley, K., & Hollan, J. (2008) Papiercraft: A gesture-based command system for interactive paper. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14 (4), 1–27. Liao, C., Guimbretière, F., Hinckley, K., & Hollan, J. (2008) Papiercraft: A gesture-based command system for interactive paper. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14(4), 1–27. ), with inconsistent findings. Whilst no significant differences have been reported across the reading mediums in some studies (Grimshaw et al., 2007Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A. (2007) Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (4), 583–599. Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A. (2007) Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 583–599. ; Murray & Pérez, 2011Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2011) E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8 (6), 49–60. Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2011) E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8(6), 49–60. ; O’Toole & Kannass, 2018O’Toole, K. J., & Kannass, K. N. (2018) Emergent literacy in print and electronic contexts: The influence of book type, narration source, and attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 173 , 100–115. O’Toole, K. J., & Kannass, K. N. (2018) Emergent literacy in print and electronic contexts: The influence of book type, narration source, and attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 173, 100–115. ), others point to the advantage of paper over digital reading (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012) Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in human behavior, 28 (5), 1816–1828. Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012) Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in human behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. ; Guimbretière, 2003Guimbretière, F. (2003, November). Paper augmented digital documents. Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 51–60. Guimbretière, F. (2003, November). Paper augmented digital documents. Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 51–60. ; Korat & Shamir, 2007Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2007) Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (3), 248–259. Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2007) Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 248–259. ; Kurata et al., 2016Kurata, K., Ishita, E., Miyata, Y., & Minami, Y. (2016) Print or digital? Reading behavior and preferences in Japan. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68 (4), 884–894. Kurata, K., Ishita, E., Miyata, Y., & Minami, Y. (2016) Print or digital? Reading behavior and preferences in Japan. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 884–894. ; Liu, 2005Liu, Z. (2005) Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation, 61 (6), 700–712. Liu, Z. (2005) Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation, 61(6), 700–712. ; Macedo-Rouet et al., 2003Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., Epstein, I., & Fayard, P. (2003) Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication, 25 (2), 99–128. Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., Epstein, I., & Fayard, P. (2003) Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication, 25(2), 99–128. ; Mangen et al., 2013Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58 , 61–68. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58, 61–68. ). Contrariwise, a growing number of reports point to the superiority of digital reading in comparison to paper (Abanomey, 2013Abanomey, A. A. (2013) Do EFL Saudi learners perform differently with online reading? An exploratory study. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 25 (1), 1–11. Abanomey, A. A. (2013) Do EFL Saudi learners perform differently with online reading? An exploratory study. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 25(1), 1–11. ; Arsham, 2002Arsham, H. (2002) Impact of the Internet on Learning and Teaching. USDLA Journal, 16 (3). Retrieved October 25, 2024 from https://​www​.learntechlib​.org​/p​/93561/Arsham, H. (2002) Impact of the Internet on Learning and Teaching. USDLA Journal, 16(3). Retrieved October 25, 2024 from https://​www​.learntechlib​.org​/p​/93561/; Aydemir et al., 2013Aydemir, Z., Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2013) The effect of reading from screen on the 5th grade elementary students’ level of reading comprehension on informative and narrative type of texts. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 13 (4), 2272–2276. Aydemir, Z., Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2013) The effect of reading from screen on the 5th grade elementary students’ level of reading comprehension on informative and narrative type of texts. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 13(4), 2272–2276. ; Ebrahimi, 2016Ebrahimi, S. S. (2016) Effect of digital reading on comprehension of English prose texts in EFL/ESL contexts. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 5 (2), 111–117. Ebrahimi, S. S. (2016) Effect of digital reading on comprehension of English prose texts in EFL/ESL contexts. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 5(2), 111–117. ; Korat & Shamir, 2007Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2007) Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (3), 248–259. Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2007) Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 248–259. ; Moody et al., 2010Moody, A. K., Justice, L. M., & Cabell, S. Q. (2010) Electronic versus traditional storybooks: Relative influence on preschool children’s engagement and communication. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10 (3), 294–313. Moody, A. K., Justice, L. M., & Cabell, S. Q. (2010) Electronic versus traditional storybooks: Relative influence on preschool children’s engagement and communication. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 294–313. ). The superiority of digital reading devices has been made possible due to improved affordance in portability, connectivity, adaptability and storage of digital text (Ballatore & Natale, 2016Ballatore, A., & Natale, S. (2016) E-readers and the death of the book: Or, new media and the myth of the disappearing medium. New media & society, 18 (10), 2379–2394. Ballatore, A., & Natale, S. (2016) E-readers and the death of the book: Or, new media and the myth of the disappearing medium. New media & society, 18(10), 2379–2394. ). Though there are numerous benefits of digital reading devices, studies point to the inconsistency in reading behaviours and can be accredited to two significant factors; i.e., the rapid change in digital technology and the complex nature of reading behaviour.

Technical variabilities in digital reading devices are speculated to significantly impact reading behaviour (Benedetto et al., 2013Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8 (12), e83676. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8(12), e83676. ). Early digital tools, for example, were associated with poor display resolution, variable refresh rate, and contrast levels (Dillon & Emurian, 1995Dillon, T. W., & Emurian, H. H. (1995) Reports of visual fatigue resulting from use of a video display unit. Computers in Human Behavior, 11 (1), 77–84. Dillon, T. W., & Emurian, H. H. (1995) Reports of visual fatigue resulting from use of a video display unit. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(1), 77–84. ). Additionally, such tools have been shown to induce visual fatigue in readers, which is unsuitable for sustained reading (Garland & Noyes, 2004Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23 (1), 43–52. Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 43–52. ; Lee et al., 2011Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32 (1), 1–7. Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32(1), 1–7. ; Mangen et al., 2013Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58 , 61–68. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58, 61–68. ; Sellen & Harper, 2003Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. (2003) The myth of the paperless office (1st paperback ed). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. (2003) The myth of the paperless office (1st paperback ed). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.).

With technological advancements, however, digital reading tools have employed faster microchips and machine learning algorithms to render the text as close to printed text as possible. Modern digital readers make use of electronic paper display or E-Ink display technology. These advancements, particularly E-Ink displays, have addressed some previous concerns by offering low-glare, energy-efficient alternatives to LCD and OLED screens (Liao et al., 2024Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28 (1), 43–55. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 43–55. ). E-Ink displays are reflective and do not emit light directly, which reduces eye strain and glare. They are energy-efficient and can hold text without power, making them ideal for e-readers. E-Ink technology works with wide viewing angles similar to paper, with minimal to no glare, reflections, and flickers. Current e-readers can mimic the text on the screen and also augment textual features with interactive elements (Burstyn & Herriotts, 2010Burstyn, J., & Herriotts, M. A. (2010) gBook: an e-book reader with physical document navigation techniques. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4369–4374). Burstyn, J., & Herriotts, M. A. (2010) gBook: an e-book reader with physical document navigation techniques. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4369–4374). ; Lahey et al., 2011Lahey, B., Girouard, A., Burleson, W., & Vertegaal, R. (2011) PaperPhone: understanding the use of bend gestures in mobile devices with flexible electronic paper displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1303–1312. Lahey, B., Girouard, A., Burleson, W., & Vertegaal, R. (2011) PaperPhone: understanding the use of bend gestures in mobile devices with flexible electronic paper displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1303–1312. ; Prensky, 2013Prensky, M. (2013) Our brains extended. Educational Leadership, 70 (6), 22–27. https://​ascd​.org​/el​/articles​/our​-brains​-extendedPrensky, M. (2013) Our brains extended. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 22–27. https://​ascd​.org​/el​/articles​/our​-brains​-extended; Watanabe et al., 2008Watanabe, J.-I., Mochizuki, A., & Horry, Y. (2008) Bookisheet: bendable device for browsing content using the metaphor of leafing through the pages. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, 360–369. Watanabe, J.-I., Mochizuki, A., & Horry, Y. (2008) Bookisheet: bendable device for browsing content using the metaphor of leafing through the pages. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, 360–369. ). Major publishing houses have embraced this digital reader trend and have invested heavily in developing digital reading solutions. Coupled with the undeniable convenience of accessibility and portability of digital books (Waycott & Kukulska-Hulme, 2003Waycott, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2003) Students’ experiences with PDAs for reading course materials. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 7 , 30–43. Waycott, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2003) Students’ experiences with PDAs for reading course materials. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 7, 30–43. ), the current digital reading tools claim to provide the closest digital rendering of text.

Although the technology has evolved, challenges such as screen-induced cognitive overload and fatigue persist, especially when reading complex texts (Liao et al., 2024Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28 (1), 43–55. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 43–55. ). Digital readers not only encompass e-readers but also multiple other platforms, such as computer screens, iPads, smartphones and tablets. Not all of them employ the E-Ink technology and instead use a range of technologies such as Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), Light-Emitting Diode (LED) display, Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) display, Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode (AMOLED). These technologies differ in technical specifications and form the basis for variable reading behaviour shown in the previous studies (Lin et al., 2013Lin, H., Wu, F. G., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2013) Legibility and visual fatigue affected by text direction, screen size and character size on color LCD e-reader. Displays, 34 (1), 49–58. Lin, H., Wu, F. G., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2013) Legibility and visual fatigue affected by text direction, screen size and character size on color LCD e-reader. Displays, 34(1), 49–58. ; Köpper et al., 2016Köpper, 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. Köpper, 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. ; Siegenthaler et al., 2012Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 367–374. Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 367–374. ). Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge the technical specifications of digital reading platforms while comparing the mediums used in reading experiments.

Additionally, variability in the reports on reading behaviour across screen and print can be accredited to the complex nature of reading behaviour and its measurement. Previous studies have reported reading behaviour using measures such as reading speed, reading comprehension, experiences, and preference (Delgado et al., 2018Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational research review, 25 , 23–38. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational research review, 25, 23–38. ; Dillon, 1992Dillon, A. (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35 (10), 1297–1326. Dillon, A. (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297–1326. ; Schwabe et al., 2021Schwabe, A., Brandl, L., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Stocker, G. (2021) Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 44 (2), 319–338. Schwabe, A., Brandl, L., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Stocker, G. (2021) Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(2), 319–338. ; Singer & Alexander, 2017Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017) Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of educational research, 87 (6), 1007–1041. Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017) Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of educational research, 87(6), 1007–1041. ). Reading behaviour is viewed as a multifaceted interaction of factors grouped according to the reader, the reading situation and the text. Reading starts with the visual perception of symbols and is further processed by higher cognitive processes to derive meaning. With the studies focusing on measuring reading behaviour, the first step would be to systematically compare readers’ eye movements to understand the influence of reading medium on reading behaviour (Rayner, 1978Rayner, K. (1978) Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological bulletin, 85 (3), 618–660. Rayner, K. (1978) Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological bulletin, 85(3), 618–660. ).

Eye-tracking studies have increasingly shed light on how different reading mediums affect visual processing. The earliest report by Dillon et al. (1988)Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988) Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The computer journal, 31 (5), 457–464. Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988) Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The computer journal, 31(5), 457–464. highlighted broad differences in processing across screen and paper reading. Screen-based reading was associated with being slower, less accurate, more fatigued, decreased comprehension, and rated inferior by readers. They argued that screen display quality was crucial in these findings, suggesting inferior screen reading. Similarly, multiple review reports comparing the reading behaviour on screen versus book reading suggest mixed findings (Clinton, 2019Clinton, V. (2019) Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of research in reading, 42 (2), 288–325. Clinton, V. (2019) Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of research in reading, 42(2), 288–325. ; Delgado et al., 2018Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational research review, 25 , 23–38. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational research review, 25, 23–38. ; Dillon et al., 1988Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988) Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The computer journal, 31 (5), 457–464. Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988) Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The computer journal, 31(5), 457–464. ; Singer & Alexander, 2017Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017) Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of educational research, 87 (6), 1007–1041. Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017) Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of educational research, 87(6), 1007–1041. ; Walsh, 2016Walsh, G. (2016) Screen and paper reading research — a literature review. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47 (3), 160–173. Walsh, G. (2016) Screen and paper reading research — a literature review. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47(3), 160–173. ).

As screens have improved, more recent studies highlight how newer technologies mitigate some of the earlier limitations of digital reading, although the fundamental cognitive differences still remain (Liao et al., 2024Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28 (1), 43–55. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., Reichle, E. D. (2024) Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 43–55. ). There has been a change in the technical features of screens, which might impact text rendering capabilities (Castellano, 1992Castellano, J. A. (1992) Handbook of display technology. San Diego: Academic Press.Castellano, J. A. (1992) Handbook of display technology. San Diego: Academic Press.); therefore, many empirical studies evaluate the different reading mediums based on such features. An early study by Oborne and Holton (1988)Oborne, D. J., & Holton, D. (1988) Reading from screen versus paper: there is no difference. International journal of man-machine studies, 28 (1), 1–9. Oborne, D. J., & Holton, D. (1988) Reading from screen versus paper: there is no difference. International journal of man-machine studies, 28(1), 1–9. compared reading on screens with dark and bright background displays to that of paper-based reading. Their results did not find any significant differences in reading speed and comprehension. Following this landmark study, multiple other empirical experiments have shown mixed findings when comparing screen versus paper reading (Nielsen, 2010Nielsen, J. (2010) iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Retrieved from http://​www​.useit​.com​/alertbox​/ipad​-kindle​-reading​.html. Accessed 21 May 2024Nielsen, J. (2010) iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Retrieved from http://​www​.useit​.com​/alertbox​/ipad​-kindle​-reading​.html. Accessed 21 May 2024; Siegenthaler et al., 2011Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32 (5), 268–273. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. ; Zambarbieri & Carniglia, 2012Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 390–396. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. ). Nielsen (2010)Nielsen, J. (2010) iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Retrieved from http://​www​.useit​.com​/alertbox​/ipad​-kindle​-reading​.html. Accessed 21 May 2024Nielsen, J. (2010) iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Retrieved from http://​www​.useit​.com​/alertbox​/ipad​-kindle​-reading​.html. Accessed 21 May 2024 compared reading across an iPad, Kindle and a printed book, reporting a slow reading pace on Kindle (10.7%) and iPad (6.2%) over traditional print books. Similarly, Siegenthaler et al. (2011)Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32 (5), 268–273. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. compared the reading processes on e-ink displays and print, reporting that the reading behaviour of e-readers produced similar proportions of regressive saccades to that of print. These results were not replicated in a successive study by the same researchers (Siegenthaler et al., 2012Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 367–374. Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 367–374. ). Zambarbieri and Carniglia (2012)Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 390–396. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. compared reading behaviour across a PC, iPad, and Kindle DX reader based on comparable eye-tracking features for digital and print reading. They found that PC-based reading produced significantly different mean fixation durations, whereas the other conditions showed no significant differences. Similarly, Miranda et al. (2018)Miranda, A. M., Nunes-Pereira, E. J., Baskaran, K., & Macedo, A. F. (2018) Eye movements, convergence distance and pupil-size when reading from smartphone, computer, print and tablet. Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science, 11 (1), 1–5. Miranda, A. M., Nunes-Pereira, E. J., Baskaran, K., & Macedo, A. F. (2018) Eye movements, convergence distance and pupil-size when reading from smartphone, computer, print and tablet. Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science, 11(1), 1–5. reported that fixation duration during computer reading was longer than during print, tablet, and smartphone reading. A recent study by Jeong and Gweon (2021)Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37 (17), 1674–1684. Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674–1684. examined the effects of the reading medium (print vs. digital) on readers’ visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes. Their two within-subject experiments compared the visual reading on three reading media: print, computer, and tablets. Their results demonstrated a shorter fixation duration and a higher fixation count during print reading than during screen reading. They also concluded that there are lower perceived fatigue levels when reading printed text than when reading from a device screen. The study concluded that the performance gap between print and screen reading is narrowing.

Given the mixed results on visual processing across mediums, additional studies are required to draw more definitive conclusions. Despite extensive research on visual processing in reading, only two recent studies have systematically compared different reading mediums. The comprehensive study by Zambarbieri and Carniglia (2012)Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 390–396. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. is now a decade old, and rapid technological advancements may have produced enhanced visual processing results. Moreover, the recent study by Jeong and Gweon (2021)Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37 (17), 1674–1684. Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674–1684. did not include Kindle readers, a significant omission given their popularity (Garland & Noyes, 2004Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23 (1), 43–52. Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 43–52. ).

The present study seeks to address these gaps by using eye-tracking methods to compare the visual processing patterns between paper-based and digital reading platforms, including PC, iPad, and Kindle. Since the early reports of Dillon et al. (1988)Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988) Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The computer journal, 31 (5), 457–464. Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988) Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The computer journal, 31(5), 457–464. , reading speed and accuracy have been considered the variables under investigation. Earlier studies using eye-tracking methods consistently utilised outcome measures such as the number of fixations, fixation duration and reading time (Jeong & Gweon, 2021Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37 (17), 1674–1684. Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674–1684. ; Miranda et al., 2018Miranda, A. M., Nunes-Pereira, E. J., Baskaran, K., & Macedo, A. F. (2018) Eye movements, convergence distance and pupil-size when reading from smartphone, computer, print and tablet. Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science, 11 (1), 1–5. Miranda, A. M., Nunes-Pereira, E. J., Baskaran, K., & Macedo, A. F. (2018) Eye movements, convergence distance and pupil-size when reading from smartphone, computer, print and tablet. Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science, 11(1), 1–5. ; Schwabe et al., 2021Schwabe, A., Brandl, L., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Stocker, G. (2021) Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 44 (2), 319–338. Schwabe, A., Brandl, L., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Stocker, G. (2021) Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(2), 319–338. ; Siegenthaler et al., 2011Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32 (5), 268–273. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. ; Zambarbieri & Carniglia, 2012Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 390–396. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. ). Therefore, the current study tried to build upon the previous experiment by Zambarbieri and Carniglia (2012)Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 390–396. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. and compare the screen and print conditions by considering the same experimental variables. The visual processing while reading three different digital reading mediums (PC reading, iPad, Kindle) and traditional book reading is reported in this paper. In the current study, the reading behaviour is evaluated by the visual processing of text, and henceforth, in this paper, when we say reading behaviour, we refer to the visual processing of text while reading. In addition, meta-analysis reports (Kong et al., 2018Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018) Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018) Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. ; Schwabe et al., 2021Schwabe, A., Brandl, L., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Stocker, G. (2021) Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 44 (2), 319–338. Schwabe, A., Brandl, L., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Stocker, G. (2021) Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(2), 319–338. ) on reading across screens and papers have suggested that a between-subject design is more commonly used. While we report the within-group variability, the design followed by the current experiment will be a between-group experiment. This research design would help us compare the results with previous reports and get a better insight into the evolution of digital mediums. Even though the measurement of reading comprehension and reading experience will provide a complete picture of reading, we chose to exclude both these measures as the plan was to comment upon the visual processing/reading differences across mediums. We were interested in determining which digital platform produces eye-tracking parameters (i.e., reading time and fixation measures) closer to reading on paper and if there are any differences across reading on a PC, iPad and Kindle reader.

Methods

This study was conducted in association with the Laboratory of Experimental Oculographic Linguistics at the University of Warsaw and the Empirical Visual Aesthetics lab at the University of Vienna. To empirically test the aim of this study, three different digital reading tools (experimental conditions) and reading a physical book (control condition) were compared. The technical specifications of reading conditions, i.e., a Dell PC, an Apple iPad, an Amazon Kindle reader, and a printed book, are summarised in Table 1.

Results

The tabulated data were checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test, indicating a normal distribution for eye tracking parameters (p > 0.05). Therefore, a one-way ANOVA and pairwise post hoc analysis were used to find differences across the study conditions. The following sections report the results under parameters related to reading time, total number of fixations, and fixation duration.

Discussion

Digital reading tools claim to provide reading experiences equivalent to paper-based reading, and this study set out to empirically test the current technology using eye movement measurements. In this study, we compared print versus digital, with three variations of digital reading. Four conditions were compared, and the following eye movement characteristics were analysed. The study mainly focused on the replicability of eye-tracking behaviour while reading on paper and how different digital mediums compare to it. In the result section, we highlighted the critical differences in reading across the different protocols of the study in terms of reading time and fixation-related measures. The word skipping rate of 0.47± 0.26 highlights the complex interplay between attentional processes and eye movement in readers (Morrison, 1984Morrison, R. E. (1984) Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and performance, 10 (5), 667–682. Morrison, R. E. (1984) Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and performance, 10(5), 667–682. ; Pollatsek & Rayner, 1990Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1990) Eye movements and lexical access in reading. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 143–163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1990) Eye movements and lexical access in reading. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 143–163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ; Henderson & Ferreira, 1990Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990) Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16 (3), 417–429. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990) Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 417–429. ) with similar reading habits and language expertise.

Reading time is significantly correlated with the processing of text (Rapp & van den Broek, 2005Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005) Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current directions in psychological science, 14 (5), 276–279. Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005) Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current directions in psychological science, 14(5), 276–279. ) and effort (Chen & Catrambone, 2015Chen, D. W., & Catrambone, R. (2015) Paper vs. screen: Effects on reading comprehension, metacognition, and reader behavior. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59 (1), 332–336. Chen, D. W., & Catrambone, R. (2015) Paper vs. screen: Effects on reading comprehension, metacognition, and reader behavior. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 332–336. ). We noted a shorter reading time of 478 seconds for PC reading, the fastest reading time across the conditions. Faster reading time for PC-based reading is supported by previous reports which suggest reading on a PC alters eye movement behaviours due to changes in screen characteristics like resolution, refresh rate, screen size, lighting and contrast level (Garland & Noyes, 2004Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23 (1), 43–52. Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 43–52. ). Similarly, the longest reading time (523 seconds) was noted for iPad-based reading. As iPads are multifunctional devices that can be used for communication, organisation, or leisure activities (Siegenthaler et al., 2012Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 367–374. Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 367–374. ), they are not intended solely for reading and would not be the ideal platform for sustained reading. That being said, multiple reports (Siegenthaler et al., 2012Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 367–374. Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 367–374. ; Benedetto et al., 2013Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8 (12), e83676. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8(12), e83676. ) discuss that reading behaviours are influenced by the purpose of reading, and visual fatigue is one crucial factor that needs to be considered regardless of the platform of reading.

Reading time on a book and Kindle reader was similar (509 and 503 seconds, respectively). Statistical tests further explored this, but they did not reveal any differences. Kindle uses the Ink e-paper technology, mimicking the paper as much as possible. E-paper technology used in modern Kindle readers claims to provide a paper-like reading experience of up to one hour (Benedetto et al., 2013Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8 (12), e83676. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8(12), e83676. ). The current findings add to the claim that tablet reading and e-ink-based devices do not differ significantly in reading (Lee et al., 2011Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32 (1), 1–7. Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32(1), 1–7. ; Siegenthaler et al., 2012Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 367–374. Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 367–374. ). Nevertheless, in light of the current experimental findings, it has to be noted that the variability within the group was very high, which can be associated with the variable nature of the reading. Factors such as reading habits, reading preferences, level of attention and vigilance can influence reading (Kuijpers et al., 2020Kuijpers, M. M., Douglas, S., & Kuiken, D. (2020) Capturing the ways we read: Introducing the reading habits questionnaire. Anglistik, 31 (1), 53–69. Kuijpers, M. M., Douglas, S., & Kuiken, D. (2020) Capturing the ways we read: Introducing the reading habits questionnaire. Anglistik, 31(1), 53–69. ).

A previous study by Dillon (1992)Dillon, A. (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35 (10), 1297–1326. Dillon, A. (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297–1326. on reading from screen versus paper showed a slower reading time on screen, which causes visual fatigue. However, meta-analysis reports reveal inconsistent findings in this avenue (Chen & Catrambone, 2015Chen, D. W., & Catrambone, R. (2015) Paper vs. screen: Effects on reading comprehension, metacognition, and reader behavior. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59 (1), 332–336. Chen, D. W., & Catrambone, R. (2015) Paper vs. screen: Effects on reading comprehension, metacognition, and reader behavior. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 332–336. ; Singer et al., 2019Singer, L. M., Alexander, P. A., & Berkowitz, L. E. (2019) Effects of processing time on comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87 (1), 101–115. Singer, L. M., Alexander, P. A., & Berkowitz, L. E. (2019) Effects of processing time on comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 101–115. ) and longer reading times for screens in others (Connell et al., 2012Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W. (2012) Effects of eBook readers and tablet computers on reading comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39 (2), 131–140. https://​api​.semanticscholar​.org​/CorpusID:64273136Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W. (2012) Effects of eBook readers and tablet computers on reading comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 131–140. https://​api​.semanticscholar​.org​/CorpusID:64273136; Daniel & Woody, 2013Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013) E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & education, 62 , 18–23. Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013) E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & education, 62, 18–23. ). Earlier e-readers and their text rendering capabilities were primitive, requiring a reader’s cognitive capacities to be split (Hillesund, 2010Hillesund, T. (2010) Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web and electronic paper. First Monday, 15 (4). Hillesund, T. (2010) Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web and electronic paper. First Monday, 15(4). ; Mason et al., 2013Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013) An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81 (3), 356–384. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013) An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356–384. ). In our experiment, we noted that reading on screens is similar to reading on paper. This aligns with previous studies on eye movements associated with reading on e-ink-readers and print (Siegenthaler et al., 2011Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32 (5), 268–273. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. ). Reading time comparisons in our experiment did not reveal significant differences and were similar to reports of Siegenthaler et al. (2010)Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., & Groner, R. (2010) Improving the usability of e-book readers. Journal of usability studies, 6 (1), 25–38. https://​dl​.acm​.org​/doi​/abs​/10​.5555​/2016899​.2016902Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., & Groner, R. (2010) Improving the usability of e-book readers. Journal of usability studies, 6(1), 25–38. https://​dl​.acm​.org​/doi​/abs​/10​.5555​/2016899​.2016902. Our findings did not support the report by Nielsen (2010)Nielsen, J. (2010) iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Retrieved from http://​www​.useit​.com​/alertbox​/ipad​-kindle​-reading​.html. Accessed 21 May 2024Nielsen, J. (2010) iPad and Kindle reading speeds. Retrieved from http://​www​.useit​.com​/alertbox​/ipad​-kindle​-reading​.html. Accessed 21 May 2024 that reading on a tablet was slower than reading a classic paper book.

Fixation duration is an established measure of cognitive processing during reading (Just & Carpenter, 1980Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87 (4), 329–354. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87(4), 329–354. ; Menz & Groner, 1984Menz, C., & Groner, R. (1984) The acquisition of a new letter system: effects of word length and redundancy. Advances in Psychology, 22, 213–222. Menz, C., & Groner, R. (1984) The acquisition of a new letter system: effects of word length and redundancy. Advances in Psychology, 22, 213–222. ). Previous reports have suggested a negative correlation between fixation duration and interrupted reading processes (Rayner et al., 2006Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006) Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific studies of reading, 10 (3), 241–255. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006) Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific studies of reading, 10(3), 241–255. ; Reingold & Rayner, 2006Reingold, E. M., & Rayner, K. (2006) Examining the word identification stages hypothesised by the E-Z Reader model. Psychological Science, 17 (9), 742–746. Reingold, E. M., & Rayner, K. (2006) Examining the word identification stages hypothesised by the E-Z Reader model. Psychological Science, 17(9), 742–746. ). In our experiment, it was noted that the total number of fixations and fixation duration when reading over a PC were significantly different when compared to the reading in the other conditions. These findings are analogous to those from past research, which found stark differences in Kindle versus PC reading, and also go further to suggest that Kindle is better than PC reading, associated with impaired reading performance (Siegenthaler et al., 2011Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32 (5), 268–273. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. ) and higher visual fatigue (Kang et al., 2009Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J. J., & Lin, R. (2009) Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30 (2), 49–52. Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J. J., & Lin, R. (2009) Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2), 49–52. ). Reading on a PC produced a longer fixation duration, suggesting that individuals who read text on a PC screen tend to blink less frequently to compensate for interruptions/ visual fatigue in reading processes, resulting in longer fixation duration. This can be associated with an adaptive mechanism that allows individuals to maintain continuous visual input and avoid disruptions in information intake.

However, it is important to note that our findings contrast with those of Jeong and Gweon (2021)Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37 (17), 1674–1684. Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674–1684. , who reported shorter fixation durations for screen-based reading, including on a PC, compared to print reading. Several factors could account for this discrepancy. First, differences in screen characteristics between the studies may have influenced fixation duration. In our study, the physical characteristics of the PC monitor used may have led to increased visual fatigue, leading to longer fixation durations.

Additionally, the cognitive load associated with reading on different devices might explain the divergent results. In our study, longer fixation durations on PC screens could indicate that readers experienced higher cognitive demands, as previous research has suggested that reading on screens may impose greater cognitive load compared to print due to factors like glare, text clarity, and screen refresh rates (Garland & Noyes, 2004Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23 (1), 43–52. Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004) CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 43–52. ). This aligns with findings from other studies that suggest readers adapt their eye movements when encountering visual fatigue or interruptions (Rayner et al., 2006Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006) Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific studies of reading, 10 (3), 241–255. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006) Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific studies of reading, 10(3), 241–255. ; Siegenthaler et al., 2011Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32 (5), 268–273. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011) Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. ).

It is also possible that the nature of the reading task and the participants’ goals may have differed between our study and that of Jeong and Gweon (2021)Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37 (17), 1674–1684. Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021) Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674–1684. , influencing eye movement behaviour. For instance, participants in their study might have engaged in more efficient reading strategies, resulting in shorter fixation durations, whereas in our study, participants might have processed the text more deeply, particularly on the PC, which could have led to longer fixation durations as a compensatory mechanism.

Previous reports have evaluated factors like reading comprehension (Mangen et al., 2013Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58 , 61–68. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58, 61–68. ) and speed of processing word identification (Kerr & Symons, 2006Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006) Computerised presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and writing, 19 (1), 1–19. Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006) Computerised presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and writing, 19(1), 1–19. ). As highlighted in our review, this study investigated reading differences at the fundamental level of eye movements. Therefore, no specific comprehension test or reading experience questionnaires were employed. When the eye-tracking results of the present study are considered alongside the findings of Rosenfield (2011)Rosenfield, M. (2011) Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31 (5), 502–515. Rosenfield, M. (2011) Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31(5), 502–515. , Siegenthaler et al. (2012)Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 367–374. Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., & Wurtz, P. (2012) Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 367–374. , Zambarbieri and Carniglia (2012)Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32 (5), 390–396. Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012) Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. and Benedetto et al. (2013)Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8 (12), e83676. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013) E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS one, 8(12), e83676. , we refine our understanding of the unique functionalities of print, e-paper, and PC screens. It can be said that even though there is a significant difference noted for all eye-tracking measures, PC and, to some extent, iPad screens are well suited for shorter reading sessions due to superior legibility and screen contrast (Findlay & Gilchrist, 2003Findlay, J. M., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2003) Active vision: The Psychology of looking and seeing. Oxford University Press. Findlay, J. M., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2003) Active vision: The Psychology of looking and seeing. Oxford University Press. ; Dyson, 2004Dyson, M. C. (2004) How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & information technology, 23 (6), 377–393. Dyson, M. C. (2004) How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & information technology, 23(6), 377–393. ) — shorter texts like newspapers, magazines and articles. However, texts like novels and textbooks are better suited for e-paper/e-Ink technology. A significant replication of book-like reading on these screens would mimic the book-reading cognitive processes while reducing eye strain (Kang et al., 2009Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J. J., & Lin, R. (2009) Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30 (2), 49–52. Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J. J., & Lin, R. (2009) Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2), 49–52. ; Lee et al., 2011Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32 (1), 1–7. Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y. (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32(1), 1–7. ; Conlon & Sanders, 2011Conlon, E., & Sanders, M. (2011) The reading rate and comprehension of adults with impaired reading skills or visual discomfort. Journal of Research in Reading, 34 (2), 193–214. Conlon, E., & Sanders, M. (2011) The reading rate and comprehension of adults with impaired reading skills or visual discomfort. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(2), 193–214. ).

The present study expands earlier reports on modern-day digital reading platforms in multiple ways. First, it allowed for within-group comparisons of the eye-tracking parameters on the same reading task for the same text. As such, it provided a more detailed picture of the complexity of reading and how it depends entirely on the reader to make a reading situation successful. Secondly, the text length was one of the strong points of our experiment; in our experiment, the text length was longer, with more than 500 words, which was highlighted in previous studies as something that future research should adopt (Davis & Neitzel, 2012Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C. (2012) Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading and Writing, 25 ( 4 ), 831–856. Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C. (2012) Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading and Writing, 25(4), 831–856. ; Mangen et al., 2013Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58 , 61–68. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58, 61–68. ). Using a longer text, we measured the reading behaviour of the participants to comment upon the long-term eye movement behaviour and how the reading medium influenced it. Previous reports have shown that reading across different mediums does not differ for shorter texts (Ali et al., 2013Ali, A. Z. M., Wahid, R., Samsudin, K., & Idris, M. Z. (2013) Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type Have Effects on Web Text Readability?. International Education Studies, 6 (3), 26–35. Ali, A. Z. M., Wahid, R., Samsudin, K., & Idris, M. Z. (2013) Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type Have Effects on Web Text Readability?. International Education Studies, 6(3), 26–35. ; Eden & Eshet-Alkalai, 2013Eden, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2013) The effect of format on performance: Editing text in print versus digital formats. British journal of educational technology, 44 (5), 846–856. Eden, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2013) The effect of format on performance: Editing text in print versus digital formats. British journal of educational technology, 44(5), 846–856. ; Margolin et al., 2013Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013) E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms?. Applied cognitive psychology, 27 (4), 512–519. Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013) E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms?. Applied cognitive psychology, 27(4), 512–519. ). Thirdly, the factor of reading pace was set by the participant. This eliminates the Shallowing Hypothesis proposed by Annisette and Lafreniere (2017)Annisette, L. E., & Lafreniere, K. D. (2017) Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115 , 154–158. Annisette, L. E., & Lafreniere, K. D. (2017) Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 154–158. , which turns the reading artificial when conducting experiments. Though we find a variability in reading of around 30 — 40%, the experimental design of reading at their own pace is better. High variability within the group highlights the variable nature of reading and the complex nature of reading and its measurement. This is closer to the real-life reading (Lauterman & Ackerman, 2014Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014) Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 455–463. Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014) Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455–463. ; Delgado et al., 2018Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational research review, 25 , 23–38. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational research review, 25, 23–38. ).

The outcomes of the current experimental findings highlight the readers’ abilities to adapt to reading changes across mediums to convert any reading situation into a successful one. Moreover, the current study revealed the superiority of digital mediums in representing text as close to paper as possible. The lack of any major differences in eye movement measures across the study conditions suggests that medium plays a minimal role, at least at the level of oculomotor movements.

The reading habits of participants and how they influence reading is a promising avenue for future research. It is speculated that avid readers generally prefer books over digital mediums (Kuijpers et al., 2020Kuijpers, M. M., Douglas, S., & Kuiken, D. (2020) Capturing the ways we read: Introducing the reading habits questionnaire. Anglistik, 31 (1), 53–69. Kuijpers, M. M., Douglas, S., & Kuiken, D. (2020) Capturing the ways we read: Introducing the reading habits questionnaire. Anglistik, 31(1), 53–69. ), and conducting a similar study that measures their eye-tracking behaviour would provide better insights into how the reading medium might facilitate or inhibit reading. A major drawback of the current experimental design is the exclusion of a measure of comprehension. Future studies could replicate this work with a larger, more homogeneous population (ensuring equal representation of males and females) and a detailed focus on additional reading elements such as comprehension tests, word recognition, recall, and narrative engagement. Additionally, the present study did not account for L1 or L2 English proficiency levels; instead, it considered a minimum B2 level of proficiency. Future research should investigate this variable in detail. Incorporating experimental protocols such as think-aloud procedures or other rating scales for reading experience may provide deeper insights into reading behaviour.

Despite the advancements in digital mediums representing text closely to printed text, it remains unclear whether the cognitive process of print reading differs fundamentally from screen reading. Successful reading experiences depend on multiple variables grouped under the reader, the reading situation, and the text (Jacobs, 2015Jacobs, A. M. (2015) Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. In R. M. Willems (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp. 135–159). Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, A. M. (2015) Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. In R. M. Willems (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp. 135–159). Cambridge University Press. ). In comparison, a vast array of research compares reading speed, comprehension, and feedback on reading experiences (Rayner, 1978Rayner, K. (1978) Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological bulletin, 85 (3), 618–660. Rayner, K. (1978) Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological bulletin, 85(3), 618–660. ), and our experiment aimed to test differences at the objective level of eye tracking empirically. To fully understand successful reading experiences, future studies should include measures of reading comprehension and reading experience questionnaires. Given the highly individualistic nature of reading, the variability observed within groups needs to be addressed in future experiments.

The implications of the present study are significant for multiple professionals. Many researchers have documented the benefits of digital tools in enhancing student learning and reading. Educators planning to incorporate new technologies and policy designers must be aware of medium-specific differences in reading. Furthermore, these results are valuable for researchers working on human-computer interaction systems like Eyebook (Biedert et al., 2009Biedert, R., Buscher, G., & Dengel, A. (2009) The eye book — Using Eye Tracking to Enhance the Reading Experience. Informatik-Spektrum, 33 (3), 272–281. Biedert, R., Buscher, G., & Dengel, A. (2009) The eye book — Using Eye Tracking to Enhance the Reading Experience. Informatik-Spektrum, 33(3), 272–281. ) and WebGazeAnalyzer (Beymer & Russell, 2005Beymer, D., & Russell, D. M. (2005, April). WebGazeAnalyzer: a system for capturing and analysing web reading behavior using eye gaze. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1913–1916). Beymer, D., & Russell, D. M. (2005, April). WebGazeAnalyzer: a system for capturing and analysing web reading behavior using eye gaze. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1913–1916). ).

Conclusion

As highlighted in our review, the way people read is evolving due to the development of digital tools. These changes are reflected in recent user engagement reports (Paczkowski, 2013Paczkowski, J. (2013) Apple’s iTunes U Hits One Billion Downloads. Retrieved from: http://​allthingsd​.com​/20130228​/apples​-itunes​-u​-hits​-1​-billion​-downloads/. Accessed 21 May 2024.Paczkowski, J. (2013) Apple’s iTunes U Hits One Billion Downloads. Retrieved from: http://​allthingsd​.com​/20130228​/apples​-itunes​-u​-hits​-1​-billion​-downloads/. Accessed 21 May 2024.; Perrin, 2022Perrin, A. (2022, January 6). Three-in-ten Americans now read e-books. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://​www​.pewresearch​.org​/short​-reads​/2022​/01​/06​/three​-in​-ten​-americans​-now​-read​-e​-books/Perrin, A. (2022, January 6). Three-in-ten Americans now read e-books. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: https://​www​.pewresearch​.org​/short​-reads​/2022​/01​/06​/three​-in​-ten​-americans​-now​-read​-e​-books/). The debate over print versus digital reading is an ongoing one with polarising claims in reports such as ‘Print is dead’ (Gomez, 2008Gomez, J. (2008) Will books disappear? In J. Gomez, Print is Dead (pp. 175–193). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Gomez, J. (2008) Will books disappear? In J. Gomez, Print is Dead (pp. 175–193). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. ) to a responsive report by Carrière and Eco (2011)Carrière, J. C., & Eco, U. (2011) This is not the end of the book: A conversation curated by Jean-Philippe de Tonnac. Random House.Carrière, J. C., & Eco, U. (2011) This is not the end of the book: A conversation curated by Jean-Philippe de Tonnac. Random House. titled, “This is not the end of the book”. Lauer (2020)Lauer, G. (2020) Lesen im digitalen Zeitalter. Wbg Academic.Lauer, G. (2020) Lesen im digitalen Zeitalter. Wbg Academic. suggests that this debate is a positive move in reading since more and more people are reading regardless of the reading medium.