Quantitative Comparison of the E-book and Paper-book by using Eye-tracker

  • Kim, Jung-Yong (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Lee, Min-Ho (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Min, Seung-Nam (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Cho, Young-Jin (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Choi, Jun-Hyeok (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Hanyang University)
  • Received : 2012.03.30
  • Accepted : 2012.09.24
  • Published : 2012.10.31


Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the difference of legibility between e-book and paper-book by using eye-tracker. Background: Despite of many researches on the e-book and paper-book, there are few researches on the difference between e-book and paper-book. In addition, the researches on the e-book were only dependent on the e-book reader. This study focused on the comparison of e-book and paper-book controlled with the same environments. Method: This study was conducted with $2{\times}3$ within-subject design. Independent variables include the types of book (e-book, paper-book) and font sizes (8pt, 10pt, 12pt). Dependent variables are four measures of fixation duration, saccade length, blink rate and subjective discomfort. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measured design was used to investigate the main and interaction effects of independent variables on each of the dependent variables. The multiple comparisons were performed by post hoc analysis and Bonferroni correction was applied. Results: Fixation duration at e-book was longer than paper-book (p<0.01). Saccade length at e-book was shorter than paper-book (p<0.05). Blink rate at e-book was higher than paper-book (p<0.1). Subjective discomfort at e-book was higher than paper-book (p<0.1). Legibility at 8pt was better than 10pt, 12pt (p<0.01) in fixation duration, saccade length and subjective discomfort. Conclusion: It was found that the legibility at e-book are worse than paper-book from this study. These results indicated that the legibility of e-book was needed to be validated and improved to replace the paper-book. Application: This study suggests improving something related to fixation duration, saccade length, blink rate and subjective discomfort for betterment of e-book.



  1. Biedert, R., Buscher, G. and Dengel, A., The eyeBook - Using Eye Tracking to Enhance the Reading Experience, Informatik-Spektrum, 33(3), 272-281, 2010.
  2. Fogarty, C. H. and Stern, J. A., Eye Movements and Blinks: Their Relationship to Higher Cognitive Processes, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 8, 35-42, 1989.
  3. Hoofer, S. and Hannafin, M. J., Variables Affecting the Legibility of Computer-generated Text, Journal of Instructional Development, 9(4), 22-28, 1986.
  4. Iqbal, S. T., Zheng, X. S. and Bailey, B. P., "Task-Evoked Pupillary Response to Mental Workload in Human-Computer Interaction", CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp.1477-1480, 2004.
  5. Ito, J., Maldonado, P., Singer, W. and Grun, S., Saccade-Related Modulations of Neuronal Excitability Support Synchrony of Visually Elicited Spikes, Cerebral Cortex, 21(11), 2482-2497, 2011.
  6. Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A., A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension, Psychological Review, 87, 329-354, 1980.
  7. Kang, B., Jung, K. and Lee, J., Visual Patterns and Performance Evaluation in the Scrolling Design of a Mobile Information Device, Journal of Korean Society of Design Science, 23(3), 261-271, 2010.
  8. Kim, G., Kim, J., Park, H. and Lee, J., A Study of the Attention to the Internet Ads through Visual Perception Process, KOBAKO (Study of Advertisement), 72, 31-58, 2006.
  9. Kim, H. and Kang, D., Investigating the Effectiveness of Multimedia Electronic Book for Children's Reading Education, Journal of Korea Library and Information Science Society, 39(1), 245-264, 2008.
  10. Lee, C., Gaze Movement to Reading Korean Letter, Seoul National University Press, 2004.
  11. Maynard, S. and Cheyne, E., Can Electronic Textbooks Help Children to Learn?, The Electronic Library, 23(1), 111-113, 2005.
  12. Menz, C. H. and Groner R., The Analysis of Some Componential Skills of Reading Acquisition. In Groner, R. and Fraisse, P. (Ed), Cognition and Eye Movements, Elsevier North Holland, Amsterdam, 169-178, 1982.
  13. Naatanen, R., Attention and Brain Function, Erlbaum, 1992.
  14. Rayner, K. and Pollatsek. A., The Psychology of Reading, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
  15. Recarte, M. A., Perez, E., Conchillo, A. and Nunes, L. M, Mental Workload and Visual Impairment: Differences between Pupil, Blink, and Subjective Rating, Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(2), 37-385, 2008.
  16. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P. and Groner, R., Improving the Usability of E-Book Readers, Journal of Usability Studies, 6(1), 25-38, 2010.
  17. Stern, J. A., Boyer, D. and Schroeder, D., Blink Rate: A Possible Measure of Fatigue, Human Factors, 36, 285-297, 1994.
  18. Waard, D. D., The Measurement of Drivers' Mental Workload, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen, Traffic Research Centre. Haren, The Netherlands, 1996.
  19. Wickens, C. D. and Justin G., Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 3rd, Prentice Hall, Hollands, 1992.
  20. Wilson, R., Landoni, M. and Gibb, F., The WEB Book Experiments in Electronic Textbook Design, Journal of Documentation, 59(4), 454-477, 2003.
  21. Yarbus, A. L., Eye Movements and Vision. NY: Plenum Press, 1967.
  22. Zibell, K., Most Readability Principles Apply to Web-site Design, ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 141-147, 2000.

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Cognitive Loads between Koreans and Foreigners in the Reading Process vol.35, pp.4, 2016,