Reading with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) has shown promise for optimizing screen space and increasing reading speed without compromising comprehension. Given the wide use of small-screen devices, the present study compared RSVP and traditional reading on three types of reading comprehension, reading speed, and subjective measures on a smart watch. Results confirm previous studies that show faster reading speed with RSVP without detracting from comprehension. Subjective data indicate that Traditional is strongly preferred to RSVP as a primary reading method. Given the optimal use of screen space, increased speed and comparable comprehension, future studies should focus on making RSVP a more comfortable format.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenedettoS.CarboneA.PedrottiM.FevreK.BeyL.BaccinoT. (2015). Rapid serial visual presentation in reading: The case of Spritz. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 352-358.
CastelhanoM.S.MuterP. (2001). Optimizing the reading of electronic text using rapid serial visual presentation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20, 237–247.
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.
6.
FleschR. (1994). The art of readable writing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
7.
FleschR. (1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.
8.
GilbertL.C. (1959). Saccadic movements as a factor in visual perception in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(1), 15-19.
9.
HedinB.LindgrenE. (2007). A Comparison of Presentation Methods for Reading on Mobile Phones. Distributed Systems Online, IEEE, 8(6), 2.
10.
International Data Corporation. (2015). Worldwide Wearables Market Forecast to Grow 173.3% in 2015 with 72.1 Million Units to be Shipped, According to IDC [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25696715
11.
JuhaszB. J.WhiteS. J.LiversedgeS. P.RaynerK. (2008). Eye movements and the use of parafoveal word length information in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1560–1579.
12.
JuolaJ. F. (1988). The use of computer displays to improve reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2(1), 87-95.
13.
KincaidJ.P.FishburneR.P.RogersR.L.ChissomB.S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis.
14.
KintschW.WelschD.M.SchmalhoferF.ZimnyS. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133-159.
15.
KolbP. DISCO: A Multilingual Database of Distributionally Similar Words. In Proceedings of KONVENS-2008, Berlin, 2008.
16.
LuximonA.GoonetillekeR. (1998). Continuous subjective workload assessment technique. In BishuR.KarwowskiW.GoonetillekeR. (Eds.), Ergonomics for Global Quality and Productivity, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/papers/cswat.pdf
17.
MassonM. E. J. (1983). Conceptual processing of text during skimming and rapid sequential reading. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 262-274.
MaurerM. S.KleinM.WaldmanF. A. (2014). U.S. Patent No. 20140016867.
20.
MillsC. B.WeldonL. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(4), 329–358.
21.
PotterM. C.KrollJ. F.HarrisC. (1980). Comprehension and Memory in Sequential Reading. In NickersonR. (Ed.), Attention and Performance VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
PotterM. C. (1984). Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP): A method for studying language processing. New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research, 118, 91–118.
23.
RaynerK. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.
24.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
RaynerK.SchotterE. R.DriegheD. (2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 1067–1072.
ÖquistG.GoldsteinM. (2003). Towards an improved readability on mobile devices: Evaluating adaptive rapid serial visual presentation. Interacting with Computers, 15(4), 539-558.
30.
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. Oulu, Finland, 176-183.
