A Comparison of Perceived Fatigue, Workload, Usability, and Comprehension in Reading on Paper, Mobile Phones, and Laptops
Abstract
Background: Reading and studying on digital devices—such as personal computers, laptops, and mobile phones—has become integral to daily life. The shift from paper to electronic formats has raised concerns about the impact of digital devices on human performance and health. The current study aimed to compare the effects of paper and electronic devices on perceived fatigue, workload, usability, and comprehension.
Methods: Thirty-six participants (58.3% female) read general passages on three devices in 2021: a laptop, a mobile phone, and paper. After each trial, participants answered ten comprehension questions to assess their understanding. Additionally, fatigue, mental workload, and usability were evaluated using a visual analog scale, NASA-TLX, and the System Usability Scale (SUS).
Results: The results showed that 69.4% of participants preferred reading on paper over screens. The average scores for fatigue (22.64) and workload (40.47) were lower for paper. The usability score for paper was higher (88.44) than for the mobile phone (68.17) and laptop (68.44). While comprehension scores were higher for paper (4.36) than for laptop (4.19) and mobile phone (4.22), the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Despite the widespread use of electronic devices for reading, paper was rated significantly higher in terms of usability and cognitive workload, although it showed no statistically significant advantage in comprehension.
2. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr. 1994;4(4):295–312.
3. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(3):372–422.
4. Grønli J. Reading from an iPad or from a book in bed: the impact on human sleep. A randomized controlled crossover trial. Sleep Med. 2016;21:86–92.
5. Hue JE. Reading from electronic devices versus hardcopy text. J Vis. 2014;47(3):303–307.
6. Fossum IN. The association between use of electronic media in bed before going to sleep and insomnia symptoms, daytime sleepiness, morningness, and chronotype. BMC Sleep Med. 2014;12(5):343–357.
7. Fuller C. Bedtime use of technology and associated sleep problems in children. Glob Pediatr Health. 2017;doi:10.1177/2333794X17736972.
8. Portello J. Computer Vision Syndrome: Hard Copy versus Computer Viewing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(13):5333.
9. Chu C. Computer vision syndrome: blink rate and dry eye during hard copy or computer viewing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(13):957.
10. Pakdee S. Immediate effects of different screen sizes on visual fatigue in video display terminal users. Iran Rehabil J. 2021;19(2):137–146.
11. Portello JK. Computer‐related visual symptoms in office workers. Opt Photonics News. 2012;32(5):375–382.
12. Blehm C. Computer vision syndrome: a review. J Soc Ophthalmol. 2005;50(3):253–262.
13. Schlote T. Marked reduction and distinct patterns of eye blinking in patients. Ger J Clin Ophthalmol. 2004;33(2):201–211.
14. Andreessen LM. Toward neuroadaptive support technologies for improving digital reading: a passive BCI-based assessment of mental workload imposed by text difficulty and presentation speed during reading. User Model User-Adap Interact. 2021;31:75–104.
15. Brishtel I, et al. Assessing cognitive workload on printed and electronic media using eye-tracker and EDA wristband. In: Companion Proc 23rd Int Conf Intell User Interfaces. Tokyo, Japan: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018. Article 45.
16. Lizunova IV. Reading on paper and screens: advantages, disadvantages, and digital divide. J Appl Linguist Stud. 2022;69(1):34–43.
17. Delgado P. Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educ Res Rev. 2018;25:23–38.
18. Mangen A. Comparing comprehension of a long text read in print book and on Kindle: Where in the text and when in the story? Front Psychol. 2019;10:doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00338.
19. Halamish V. Children’s reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper. Comput Educ. 2020;145:103737.
20. Kong Y. Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2018;123:138–149.
21. Mohsen M, et al. Designing questionnaire of assessing mental workload and determine its validity and reliability among ICUs nurses in one of the TUMS’s hospitals. Sci J Sch Public Health Inst Public Health Res. 2013;11(2):87–96.
22. Noyes JM. A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX workload measure. Ergonomics. 2007;50(4):514–519.
23. Ghanbari Z, Dianat I. Psychometric properties of the Persian language version of the system usability scale. 2014.
24. Podolsky T. Student academic reading preferences: A study of online reading habits and inclinations. Online Stud J. 2014.
25. Kauranen A. Books in, screens out: some Finnish pupils go back to paper after tech push. Reuters. 2024 Sep 10.
26. Chou IC. Understanding on-screen reading behaviors in academic contexts: A case study of five graduate English-as-a-second-language students. Cogn Learn. 2012;25(5):411–433.
27. Mayes DK. Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. Int J Ind Ergon. 2001;28(6):367–378.
28. Clinton VJ. Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Read Inf Res. 2019;42(2):288–325.
29. Banerjee J. Readability, subjective preference and mental workload studies on young Indian adults for selection of optimum font type and size during onscreen reading. J Appl Med Sci. 2011;4(2):131–143.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 17 No 2 (2025) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| Published | 2025-12-09 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Evaluation methodologies Teaching strategies Learning strategies Usability Mental workload Fatigue Digital devices Mobile learning | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
