↓ Skip to main content

E-Readers Are More Effective than Paper for Some with Dyslexia

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
199 X users
facebook
25 Facebook pages
googleplus
15 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
E-Readers Are More Effective than Paper for Some with Dyslexia
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0075634
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew H. Schneps, Jenny M. Thomson, Chen Chen, Gerhard Sonnert, Marc Pomplun

Abstract

E-readers are fast rivaling print as a dominant method for reading. Because they offer accessibility options that are impossible in print, they are potentially beneficial for those with impairments, such as dyslexia. Yet, little is known about how the use of these devices influences reading in those who struggle. Here, we observe reading comprehension and speed in 103 high school students with dyslexia. Reading on paper was compared with reading on a small handheld e-reader device, formatted to display few words per line. We found that use of the device significantly improved speed and comprehension, when compared with traditional presentations on paper for specific subsets of these individuals: Those who struggled most with phoneme decoding or efficient sight word reading read more rapidly using the device, and those with limited VA Spans gained in comprehension. Prior eye tracking studies demonstrated that short lines facilitate reading in dyslexia, suggesting that it is the use of short lines (and not the device per se) that leads to the observed benefits. We propose that these findings may be understood as a consequence of visual attention deficits, in some with dyslexia, that make it difficult to allocate attention to uncrowded text near fixation, as the gaze advances during reading. Short lines ameliorate this by guiding attention to the uncrowded span.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 199 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
France 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 233 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Researcher 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 57 23%
Unknown 42 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 22%
Social Sciences 44 18%
Computer Science 26 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 6%
Arts and Humanities 11 4%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 54 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 423. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2023.
All research outputs
#70,208
of 25,888,065 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#1,175
of 225,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#427
of 214,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#21
of 4,930 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,888,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 214,643 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,930 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.