The horizontally scrolling format, where text is presented in a single line drifting right to left, is relatively commonly used to display text on digital screens. This format presents a potentially challenging reading situation as the text must be followed smoothly to the left (to track individual words) while rightward eye movements are made as usual to progress through the text. This conflict may reduce attention allocated to upcoming text. Returning to previously encountered text is also more difficult with this format. Here, a sustained reading comprehension task was used to compare performance with horizontally scrolling and multi-line static text formats. Results showed that literal comprehension can be reasonably well maintained with scrolling text, although small decrements are seen at faster scrolling rates. However, they indicated that this format makes it more difficult to answer questions requiring an inference to be made. The contribution of working memory capacity and the impact of display speed on these effects were considered. These findings have implications for the application of this format in digital media and also more widely for the conditions required for successful in-depth reading comprehension with any text format.
Al-FahadF. (2009). Students’ attitudes and perceptions towards the effectiveness of mobile learning in King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 10.
2.
BaddeleyA. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359
3.
BaddeleyA.HitchG. (1974). Working memory. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). London, England: Academic Press.
4.
BenedettoS.CarboneA.PedrottiM.Le FevreK.BeyL. A. Y.BaccinoT. (2015). Rapid serial visual presentation in reading: The case of Spritz. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 352–358. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.043
5.
BowersA. R.WoodsR. L.PeliE. (2004). Preferred retinal locus and reading rate with four dynamic text presentation formats. Optometry and Vision Science, 81, 205–213.
6.
BuettnerM.KrischerC.MeissenR. (1985). Characterization of gliding text as a reading stimulus. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 479–482.
7.
BurtonC.DanemanM. (2007). Compensating for a limited working memory capacity during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Psychology, 28, 163–186. doi:10.1080/02702710601186407
8.
ChienY.-H.ChenC.-H.WeiW.-L. (2008). Effects of dynamic display, presentation method, speed, and task type on reading comprehension of wristwatch screens. Displays, 29, 471–477. doi:10.1016/j.displa.2008.03.005
9.
ChristieJ.JustM. A. (1976). Remembering the location and content of sentences in a prose passage. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 702–710.
10.
CokeE. (1976). Reading rate, readability, and variations in task-induced processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 167–173.
11.
DahlstromE. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research.
12.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
13.
DeruazA.WhathamA. R.MermoudC.SafranA. B. (2002). Reading with multiple preferred retinal loci: Implications for training a more efficient reading strategy. Vision Research, 42, 2947–2957.
14.
DysonM.HaselgroveM. (2000). The effects of reading speed and reading patterns on the understanding of text read from screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 210–223. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00115
15.
DysonM.HaselgroveM. (2001). The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 585–612. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2001.0458
16.
EngleR. W.KaneM. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In RossB. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 145–199). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44005-X
17.
EricssonK. A.KintschW. (1999). The role of long-term working memory in text comprehension. Psychologia, 42, 186–198.
18.
FineE. M.WoodsR. L.PeliE. (2001). Is there a preview benefit when reading scrolled text? In SawchukA. (Ed.), Vision science and its applications (Paper FC5, pp. 55–58). Washington, DC: Optical Society of America.
19.
GikasJ.GrantM. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
20.
HarveyH.GodwinH.FitzsimmonsG.LiversedgeS. P.WalkerR. (2017). Oculomotor and linguistic processing effects in reading dynamic horizontally scrolling text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 518–536. doi:10.1037/xhp0000329
21.
HarveyH.WalkerR. (2014). Reading with peripheral vision: A comparison of reading dynamic scrolling and static text with a simulated central scotoma. Vision Research, 98, 54–60. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2014.03.009
22.
HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (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, 417–429.
23.
HuckinT. N. (1983). A cognitive approach to readability. In AndersonP.BrockmannR.MillerC. (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 90–108). Baywood, NY: Farmingdale.
24.
JuolaJ. F.TiritogluA.PleunisJ. (1995). Reading text presented on a small display. Applied Ergonomics, 26, 227–229.
25.
KangT.MuterP. (1989). Reading dynamically displayed text. Behaviour and Information Technology, 8, 33–42.
26.
KarimiH.FerreiraF. (2015). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1013–1040. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
27.
KerzelD.ZieglerN. E. (2005). Visual short-term memory during smooth pursuit eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 354–372. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.354
28.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
29.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
KintschW.RawsonK. A. (2007). Comprehension. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The Science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
31.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
32.
LeggeG. E.RossJ. A.MaxwellK.LuebkerA. (1989). Psychophysics of reading. VII. Comprehension in normal and low vision. Clinical Vision Sciences, 4, 51–60.
33.
McvayJ. C.KaneM. J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 302–320. doi:10.1037/a0025250
34.
NtimS. K. (2015). Comprehension skill differences between proficient and less proficient reader in word-to-text integration processes: Implications for interventions for students with reading problems. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 13(3), 41–61.
35.
ÖquistG.LundinK. (2007). Eye movement study of reading text on a mobile phone using paging, scrolling, leading, and RSVP. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia - MUM ‘07 (pp. 176–183). Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1145/1329469.1329493
36.
PatbergJ. P.YonasA. (1978). The effects of the reader’s skill and the difficulty of the text on the perceptual span in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 4, 545–552. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.545
37.
PatersonD. G.TinkerM. A. (1940). How to make type readable. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
38.
PegrumM.OakleyG.FaulknerR. (2013). Schools going mobile: A study of the adoption of mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 66–81. doi:10.1234/ajet.v29i1.64
39.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. doi:10.1080/10888430701530730
40.
PerfettiC.HartL. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In GorfeinD. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
41.
PerfettiC.HartL. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In VerhoevenL.ElbroC.ReitsmaP. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 67–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
42.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
43.
RappD.van den BroekP. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276–279.
44.
RaynerK. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211–236.
45.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
46.
RaynerK. (2014). The gaze-contingent moving window in reading: Development and review. Visual Cognition, 22, 242–258. doi:10.1080/13506285.2013.879084
47.
RaynerK.AshbyJ.PollatsekA.ReichleE. D. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 720–732. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720
48.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1989). The psychology of reading. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erblaum Associates.
49.
RaynerK.SchotterE. R.MassonM. E. J.PotterM. C.TreimanR. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help?Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34. doi:10.1177/1529100615623267
50.
RizzolattiG.RiggioL.DascolaI.UmiltaC. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favour of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.
51.
RizzolattiG.RiggioL.SheligaB. (1994). Space and selective attention. In UmiltaC.MoscovitchM. (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 231–265). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
RothkopfE. (1971). Incidental memory for location of information in text. Journal of Memory and Language, 10, 608–613.
53.
SchotterE. R.TranR.RaynerK. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25, 1218–1226. doi:10.1177/0956797614531148
54.
SmithF. (1971). Understanding reading. New York, NY: Holt.
55.
SoJ. C. Y.ChanA. H. S. (2013). Effects of display method, text display rate and observation angle on comprehension performance and subjective preferences for reading Chinese on an LED display. Displays, 34, 371–379. doi:10.1016/j.displa.2013.09.006
56.
StothardS. E.HulmeC.ClarkeP.BarmbyP.SnowlingM. J. (2010). York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC): Passage reading secondary. London, England: GL Assessment.
57.
TinkerM. A. (1965). Bases for effective reading. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
58.
ValsecchiM.GegenfurtnerK. R.SchützA. C. (2013). Saccadic and smooth-pursuit eye movements during reading of drifting texts. Journal of Vision, 13(10), 8.
59.
van den BroekP.BekerK.OudegaM. (2015). Inference generation in text comprehension: Automatic and strategic processes in the construction of a mental representation. In O’BrienE.CookA. E.LorchR. F. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 94–121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
van den BroekP.MouwJ. M.KraalA. (2016). Individual differences in reading comprehension. In AfflerbachP. (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading (pp. 138–150). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
61.
van den BroekP.RappD.KendeouP. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_11
62.
van den BroekP.YoungM. (1998). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In van OostendorpH.GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
63.
van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
64.
VenkataramanA.LewisP.UnsboP.LundströmL. (2017). Peripheral resolution and contrast sensitivity: Effects of stimulus drift. Vision Research, 133, 145–149.
65.
VerhoevenL.PerfettiC. (2008). Advances in text comprehension: Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293–301.
66.
WalkerR. (2013). An iPad app as a low-vision aid for people with macular disease. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 97, 110–112.
67.
WalkerR.BryanL.HarveyH.RiaziA.AndersonS. J. (2016). The value of Tablets as reading aids for individuals with central visual field loss: An evaluation of eccentric reading with static and scrolling text. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, 36, 355–512. doi:10.1111/opo.12296
68.
WallaceS.ClarkM.WhiteJ. (2012). ‘It’s on my iPhone’: Attitudes to the use of mobile computing devices in medical education, a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open, 2(4), e001099. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001099
69.
WhiteS. J.LantzL.PatersonK. B. (2017). Spontaneous rereading within sentences: Eye movement control and visual sampling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 395–413.
70.
WhiteS. J.RaynerK.LiversedgeS. P. (2005). Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 891–896. doi:10.3758/BF03196782
71.
ZechmeisterE.McKillipJ. (1972). Recall of place on the page. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 446–453.
