↓ Skip to main content

Reading Traits for Dynamically Presented Texts: Comparison of the Optimum Reading Rates of Dynamic Text Presentation and the Reading Rates of Static Text Presentation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
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
Reading Traits for Dynamically Presented Texts: Comparison of the Optimum Reading Rates of Dynamic Text Presentation and the Reading Rates of Static Text Presentation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01390
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miki Uetsuki, Junji Watanabe, Hideyuki Ando, Kazushi Maruya

Abstract

With the growth in digital display technologies, dynamic text presentation is used widely in every day life, such as in electric advertisements and tickers on TV programs. Unlike static text reading, little is known about the basic characteristics underlying reading dynamically presented texts. Two experiments were performed to investigate this. Experiment 1 examined the optimum rate of dynamic text presentation in terms of a readability and favorability. This experiment demonstrated that, when the rate of text presentation was changed, there was an optimum presentation rate (around 6 letters/s in our condition) regardless of difficulty level. This indicates that the presentation rate of dynamic texts can affect the impression of reading. In Experiment 2, to elucidate the traits underlying dynamic text reading, we measured the reading speeds of silent and trace reading among the same participants and compared them with the optimum presentation rate obtained in Experiment 1. The results showed that the optimum rate was slower than with silent reading and faster than with trace reading, and, interestingly, the individual optimum rates of dynamic text presentation were correlated with the speeds of both silent and trace reading. In other words, the readers who preferred a fast rate in dynamic text presentation would also have a high reading speed for silent and trace reading.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Lecturer 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 38%
Arts and Humanities 2 25%
Linguistics 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,910,703
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,720
of 30,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,605
of 318,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#461
of 578 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 318,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 578 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.