ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019
Comparing Comprehension of a Long Text Read in Print Book and on Kindle: Where in the Text and When in the Story?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Paper Versus Digital Reading on Reading Comprehension in Health Professional Education.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2021Pooled it
- Digital Visual Acuity and Reading Performance with Positive and Negative Display Polarities After Bilateral Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation: A Longitudinal Observational Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Paper vs. screen: inclination matters during global-local visual processing.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Mapping learning preferences in nursing education: A cross-sectional study among generation Z students.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Don't Throw Away Your Notebook: Effects of Task Difficulty and Presentation Medium on Memory Performance.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Neuronal Mechanisms of Reading Informational Texts in People with Different Levels of Mental Resilience.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Technology at the Rescue? Online Games, Adolescent Mental Health and the COVID Pandemic.American journal of psychoanalysis · 2024Article
- The screen inferiority depends on test format in reasoning and meta-reasoning tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The promotion of critical reading through the digital environment: A study on the virtual epitexts used to promote children's picturebooks.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Scholarly reading (and writing) and the power of impact factors: a study of distributed cognition and intellectual habits.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Reading digital- versus print-easy texts: a study with university students who prefer digital sources.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2022Article
- Text Materialities, Affordances, and the Embodied Turn in the Study of Reading.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- The Effect of Claustrophobic Tendencies on Digital Spatial Preferences.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Experiencing literature on the e-reader: the effects of reading narrative texts on screen.Journal of research in reading · 2021Article
- The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure.Learning and instruction · 2021Article
- The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: where do we stand? .Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2020Review
- Some Challenges for the Human Brain in Communication With the Digital Society.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Construction of Cognitive Maps to Improve Reading Performance by Text Signaling: Reading Text on Paper Compared to on Screen.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital reading devices such as Kindle differ from paper books with respect to the kinesthetic and tactile feedback provided to the reader, but the role of these features in reading is rarely studied empirically. This experiment compares reading of a long text on Kindle DX and in print. Fifty participants (24 years old) read a 28 page (∼1 h reading time) long mystery story on Kindle or in a print pocket book and completed several tests measuring various levels of reading comprehension: engagement, recall, capacities to locate events in the text and reconstructing the plot of the story. Results showed that on most tests subjects performed identically whatever the reading medium. However, on measures related to chronology and temporality, those who had read in the print pocket book, performed better than those who had read on a Kindle. It is concluded that, basically comprehension was similar with both media, but, because kinesthetic feedback is less informative with a Kindle, readers were not as efficient to locate events in the space of the text and hence in the temporality of the story. We suggest that, to get a correct spatial representation of the text and consequently a coherent temporal organization of the story, readers would be reliant on the sensorimotor cues which are afforded by the manipulation of the book.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.