Advertisement

Reading on eInk and Backlit LED – The Influence of Positive and Negative Contrast on Eye Movements

  • Yves Etienne Bochud
  • Marc Garbely
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7946)

Abstract

This preliminary study aims at identifying possible differences in eye movements while reading either dark text on light background or light text on dark background on-screen. To this end, eye movements during reading with two different screen technologies which are dominant in the domain of mobile e-reading devices (i.e. eInk and backlit LED), have been examined for both negative and positive contrast. Results show that for reading on electronic displays, direction of contrast (negative/positive) has no significant influence on central eye movements involved in reading. Therefore, both positive and negative contrasts can be recommended when presenting text to users on-screen and provide good readability. This goes for either eInk or LED screens, however, a tendency for longer fixations was observed when reading with negative contrast on the LED screen. This may be due to the higher contrast on the LED screen, compared to the lower contrast of the eInk screen.

Keywords

readability legibility contrast polarity effect LED eInk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., Groner, R.: Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays 32(5), 268–273 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scharff, L.F.V., Ahumada Jr., A.J.: Predicting the readability of transparent text. Journal of Vision 2(9), 653–666 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scharff, L.F.V., Ahumada Jr., A.J.: Contrast measures for predicting text readability. In: Rogowitz, B.E., Pappas, T.N. (eds.) Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VII. SPIE Proc., vol. 5007, Paper 46 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zuffi, S., Brambilla, C., Beretta, G., Scala, P.: Human Computer Interaction: Legibility and contrast. In: 14th International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, ICIAP (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauer, D., Cavonius, C.R.: Improving the legibility of video display unitsthrough contrast reversal. In: Grandjean, E., Vigliani, E. (eds.) Ergonomic Aspects of Video Display Terminals, pp. 137–142. Taylor & Francis, London (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchner, A., Mayr, S., Brandt, M.: The advantage of positive text-background Polarity is due to high display luminance. Ergonomics 52(7), 882–886 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Legge, G.E., Rubin, G.S., Luebker, A.: Psychophysics of reading: V. The role of contrast in normal vision. Vision Res. 27(7), 1165–1177 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall, R.H., Hanna, P.: The impact of web page text-background colour combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics and behavioural intention. Behaviour & Information Technology 23(3), 183–195 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rubin, G.S., Legge, G.E.: Psychophysics of reading: V. The role of contrast in low vision. Vision Res. 29(1), 79–91 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Bergamin, P., Wurtz, P.: Reading on LCD vs. e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 32(5), 367–374 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mansfield, J.S., Legge, G.E., Bane, M.C.: Psychophysics of reading: XV. Font effects in normal and low vision. Invest. Opthalmol. Vis. Sci. 37, 1492–1501 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van de Velde, C., Grünau, M.: Tracking eye movements while reading: Printing press versus the cathode ray tube. Abstract Supplement (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poole, A., Ball, L.J.: Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Research: Current status and future prospects. In: Ghaoui, C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction, pp. 211–219. Idea Group Reference (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morrison, R.E., Inhoff, A.W.: Visual factors and eye movement in reading. Visible Language 15(2), 129–146 (1981)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V., Ziefle, M.: Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 69(9), 563–570 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayhoe, M.M., Ballard, D.H.: Mechanisms of gaze control in natural vision. In: Liversedge, S.P., Gilchrist, I.D., Everling, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of EyeMovements, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beste, C., Wascher, E., Güntürkün, O., Dinse, H.R.: Improvement and impairment of visually guided behavior through LTP- and LTD-like exposure-based visual learning. Curr. Biol. 21, 876–882 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldstein, E.B.: Sensation and Perception, 6th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faria, A.W.C., Menotti, D., Pappa, G.L., Lara, D.S.D., Araujo, A.: A methodology for photometric validation in vehicles visual interactive systems. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal 39(4), 4122–4134 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves Etienne Bochud
    • 1
  • Marc Garbely
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Research in Open, Distance- and eLearningSwiss Distance University of Applied SciencesBrigSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations