Mobile reading using Gestural controlled RSVP
             (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation)

                                                                   line user-controlled scroll ('pull' method), while d...

measured by reading speed, comprehension inventories              Each subject was tested with one of the Three experim...

The future reference test was used for additional perspective      was little difference between the two RSVP methods. ...

regular reading. Comparison of pairs also revealed that the use      In the our view, the RSVP method is primarily a wa...

experiment experience (with no significance between groups)
better than reading texts in books or desktops. They also n...

[10] Juola, J.F., Tiritoglu, A., and Pleunis, J. (1995). Reading   [24] Quek, F., McNeill, D., Bryll, R., Duncan, S., M...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Mobile reading iphone, andriod and more


Published on

Amazing ability to read 2 times and more and utilize small screen devices to read large amounts. based on RSVP and long time research.
research conducted with 6th grade students using iPhone.
especially useful for developing countries

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mobile reading iphone, andriod and more

  1. 1. 1 Mobile reading using Gestural controlled RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation) Prof. Shimon Shocken, IDC Sagi Schliesser, , sagi.schlisser@gmail.com reading on devices with small screens (e.g. mobile devices), Abstract - This work promotes a relatively new and perhaps however high cognitive load was found as well, putting the unconventional form of text presentation with the potential to reader in “high alert” state. This state resulted in high enable small screen effective reading (speed and comprehension). frustration level reported by the readers. RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation) is a reading method in which text is read by presenting word at a time, one after another while keeping the word center static. Recent research performed II. MOTIVATION with small screens such as mobile devices, found that in such Our environment is changing rapidly: the information age scenarios RSVP has significant advantage in readability (speed means data is growing rapidly and reading devices should and comprehension) over the standard reading method. However provide increased speed and better comprehension, mobility while digital reading devices such as Kindle© are becoming means powerful mobile devices are used by people wherever commercially successful, RSVP is not widely adopted although it they go, these devices have small screens which are hard to can easily run on many mobile devices. RSVP reading was found to be associated with higher frustration levels which this research read from. Recently reading devices such as Kindle© from assumes is the result of lower perception of control over the Amazon are becoming commercially successful, RSVP is not reading process. This research hypothesis is that adding Gestural widely adopted although it can easily run on many mobile control to RSVP will introduce a low cognitive load means of devices. The motivation behind this research was to test control for RSVP. This should correspond to a lower level of whether introducing gestural control for RSVP reading would experienced frustration. bring back to the readers the sense of control; but also whether this sensation of control will be achieved with low cognitive Index Terms — Mobile reading, Gestural control, RSVP, load. Enabling comfortable RSVP reading which can be run small screen reading, fast reading, mobility. on wide variety of mobile devices and used by children and adults, is beneficial and promotes reading and learning in new I. INTRODUCTION scenarios. T ext processing studies have shown that readers interpret texts one word, not one sentence, at a time. Readability (reading speed and comprehension) with III. THE READING AND CONTROL CHALLENGE In this part of the paper we will cover the following topics: window heights that are four lines and smaller with width of  Reading process 1/3 of whole page, were found to be significantly less efficient  Readability [4]. Mobile devices have small screens which highly  Small screen reading correspond to these measures. Research suggested that especially for mobile device reading using an unconventional  Semantic priming method might prove to be useful. The method is RSVP –  RSVP reading –emphasis on mobile devices Rapid Serial Visual Presentation, which refers to (in this  Gestural control research) reading one word at a time, word after another where A. Reading the word center remains static. RSVP is a „technological‟ The key to reading and language, in general, lies deeply method for reading as it requires a device to enable word after embedded within our mind. The retina has a 240-degree field word presentation. Compared with conventional reading, of vision but the maximum resolution is restricted to the fovea. language processing during RSVP reading seems to proceed The parafoveal region extends the foveal perceptual span to considerably faster. RSVP research has shown that readers approximately 20 characters, but beyond that acuity is too low read and understand RSVP texts presented as fast as 600 for retrieval. WPM – more than twice the page reading rate [85]. Processing and comprehension are probably faster during RSVP reading because serial presentation eliminates the need for time consuming strategies readers ordinarily employ when they decide when and where to move their eye during page reading. Previous research also showed useful properties for RSVP
  2. 2. 2 line user-controlled scroll ('pull' method), while dynamic refers to push methods where text (paragraph, line, word etc.) is sequenced to the user. The text presentation formats presented here are not applicable for small screens alone. Often a lot of information must be squeezed into a small window on a large screen. D. Semantic priming Semantic Priming refers to the fact that familiar words quickly activate or “prime” their previously stored semantic Figure 1: Perceptual span associations: subjects identify a target word (such as After information is processed in a fixation, peripheral vision DOCTOR) more rapidly when its presentation is preceded by is used to determine the location of the next fixation. A a relative word (e.g. NURSE) as opposed to an unrelated saccade, a return sweep, is executed to move to the next “prime” word (e.g. TABLE). Response facilitation of fixation target, and is not necessarily a forward movement. semantically related words (the priming effect) is believed to Fixations take about ~230 msec on average for fast readers reflect the organization of concepts in memory: related words and ~330 msec on average for average readers [80]. Text prime one another because they are stored closely together in processing studies have shown that readers interpret texts one association network. Below 300 msec, between two inputs, word, not one sentence, at a time. Semantic Priming refers to priming is automatic, however over 300 msec selective the fact that familiar words quickly activate or “prime” their processing incurs a processing penalty and un-attentional previously stored semantic associations. Longer fixations priming degrades [18] [26]. During the reading process, longer (fixations vary between 100-500 msec) will have an impact on fixations (fixations vary between 100-500 msec) will have an the priming effectiveness, and consequently comprehension. impact on the priming effectiveness, and consequently B. Readability comprehension which is improved through priming. Readability is typically evaluated in terms of reading speed E. RSVP Reading and comprehension. Reading speed is often calculated as The term RSVP was first introduced by Forster (1970) as a words read per minute (wpm), whereas comprehension is name for a technique used for studying text processing and represented as percent of correctly answered multiple-choice comprehension. Later RSVP was introduced as a presentation questions about the subject matter. The reading speed results technique for computer screens with the assumption that the are more consistent when comparing results from repeated reduced need for eye movements could reduce cognitive load performance of the same subject‟s on different texts, whereas and optimize readability ([9] [15] [22]). However, the term comprehension scores are slightly unpredictable since they are RSVP has come to label a wide variety of approaches for text highly dependent on the type of questions asked. The product presentation where chunks of text have been displayed of the reading speed and comprehension scores has been successively. The designs of most RSVP evaluations and suggested as a composite measure for reading efficiency [2] implementations have differed so much that the findings from [5]. The measure is used to avoid problems associated with one evaluation are not necessarily applicable to another. RSVP assumed trade-offs between speed and comprehension. was used for experiments about automatic processing during rapid reading. The results showed that that readers read and C. Small Screen Reading understand RSVP texts presented as fast as 600 WPM – more Most mobile devices utilize flat Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) than twice the page reading rate [85] .Processing and screens. Today LCDs offer a good resolution and color depth. comprehension are probably faster during RSVP reading The problem with readability on small screens is however not because serial presentation eliminates the need for time so much the resolution, but rather the limitation in the screen consuming strategies readers ordinarily employ when they space. This limitation restricts the amount of information that decide when and where to move their eye during page reading. can be presented at one time thus reading a text on a small Karin Sicheritz implemented an RSVP reader in order to screen can be frustrating. To complicate matters, users of evaluate how-to read using RSVP on a PDA compared to mobile devices do not always have access to printing facilities. using paper-based text [5]. The application was implemented Studies have been done on the effect of display size on reading on a Casio Cassiopeia E-105 PDA and offered a graphical user in order to determine how small a screen can be before interface. In a repeated-measurement, within-subject problems occur. Duchnicky and Kolers (1983) performed an experiment, using ten subjects, the RSVP reader was experiment with varying text window widths and heights and benchmarked against the paper-based text. Different window found that, readability with window heights that are four lines widths for the RSVP reader, 11 and 25 characters, were and smaller with width of 1/3 of whole page, were compared to a paper-based text condition. The texts used in significantly less efficient (highly corresponds to mobile the experiment were the first six chapters from the novel devices) [4]. “Röda Rummet” (in Swedish by August Strindberg), the There are several methods to present text on small screens. chapters were between ~2700–6300 words long. The subjects The methods can be divided into static and dynamic text read the first chapter in the paper-based text and the following presentation formats. The major difference between the chapters using the RSVP reader prototype. The subjects were formats is that traditional text presentation refers to a multi- instructed to read as fast as possible. Readability was
  3. 3. 3 measured by reading speed, comprehension inventories Each subject was tested with one of the Three experimental consisting of ten multiple-choice questions, the NASA-TLX conditions (I, II and III) only, 20 subjects for each (Task Load Index) [82] task load inventory, and an attitude experimental condition, 60 subjects in total. The subjects were inventory consisting of five questions about difficulty, assigned to one of the three groups at random. efficiency, comprehension, stimulation and facilitation of the presentation [82] [5]. Though a text presentation width of 25 characters resulted in the highest reading efficiency, the The task presented to each subject was identical different only differences were not significant. However, the task load in the reading software used and included: inventory did reveal significantly higher task load ratings  Introduction – An explanation of the procedure and for all RSVP conditions for all factors but Physical the questionnaires. demand [82] [5].  Familiarization Text Reading – familiarization text A later experiment was performed using a Compaq iPAQ was read on the device by each subject, this was done 3630. The initial speed of the text presentation was set to 250 to adjust to the device and reduce initial anxiety. wpm, but the subjects were allowed to alter the speed at any  Test Text Reading – Each subject was asked to read time. A commercial program was chosen for the traditional identical test text. The WPM (words per minute) rate text presentation - Microsoft Reader version 1.0. The results was calculated according to the total amount of showed that the use of RSVP resulted in significantly higher words in the text divided by the end time minus the task loads when compared to traditional text presentation with start time (as measured by the device). Microsoft Reader. In addition, regardless of the RSVP  Unseen Comprehension – Each subject answered an condition, in the test the perceived ease, comprehension, ease, unseen comprehension test with 12 multiple choice comprehension, immersion, and naturalness were rated questions. significantly lower compared to Microsoft Reader [19]  Task Load (derived from NASA-TLX) – Each F. Gestural Control subject answered a task load questionnaire and a frustration measuring question as part of it. Quek et al. (2002) have proposed a framework for classifying gestures for human-computer interactions, into three  „Future Reference‟ Questionnaire – the subject categories: manipulation, semaphores and gesture-speech completed a set of multiple choice questions on the approaches [24]. The relevant gesture category for this work is possible use of the reading technique they have semaphoric: "systems of signaling using flags, lights or arms" experienced in their everyday life and education in (Brittanica.com). By extension, we define semaphoric gestures the future. to be any gesturing system that employs a dictionary of hand B. Design or arm gestures. Semaphoric gestures are linked with the move The null hypotheses were as follows: towards more ubiquitous computing paradigms and are a  No difference in reading speed across the three means of reducing distraction to a primary task when performing secondary task interactions (e.g. locating region on reading methods satellite image – primary task, while monitoring an error  No difference in text comprehension across the three terminal – secondary task) [17]. reading methods  No difference in task load across the three reading methods IV. THE RESEARCH  No difference in frustration level across the three In Gestural RSVP, gestures manifested by spatial movements reading methods of the reading device control the speed of the word presentation and the pause/play control. Research was The hypotheses were tested via the repeated-measurement conducted with 6th grade students to evaluate whether gestural General Linear Model (GLM). The significance level was set control will provide a low cognitive load means for controlling to 5% RSVP reading and thus lower the frustration level. Lowering the frustration level might enable RSVP to become a popular The data was collected between groups; the hypotheses were way of reading on small screens and mobile devices. tested based on the following measures: A. Method  Reading Speed – based on the wpm (word per Sixty subjects were split into three groups: minute) rate in reading the test text.  Group I – „Standard reading‟: texts presented using a  Comprehension – percent of correctly answered standard text reader for iPod touch (mail reader) success multiple choice domain matter questions.  Group II – „Standard RSVP‟: text presented using  Task Load – The measure of the task load was based standard RSVP with button control as presented in on the answers to the Task Load inventory which was the relevant research [82] [5] [19]. administered to check mental, temporal demands, as well as performance level for reading the text.  Group III – „Gestural RSVP‟: text presented using RSVP and controlled by gestural control.  Frustration question – this measure was taken to check the frustration level during reading the text.
  4. 4. 4 The future reference test was used for additional perspective was little difference between the two RSVP methods. The null and future research; however it was not used for the null hypothesis was not kept, but the direction of the change favors hypothesis testing. the RSVP methods. C. Apparatus Reading speed Average Standard Deviation Regular 15.25 All experiments were performed on five iPod touch second reading 81.83 generation 8GB devices. They were all running version 2.2.1 RSVP 112.39 39.18 of the iPod/iPhone OS. The prototype software was installed GRSVP 114.00 37.90 on the devices and was used for all RSVP conditions. The initial speed of the text presentation was always set to 92 wpm To test the null hypothesis, a differential analysis was (assuming no punctuation), but the subjects were encouraged performed between the three groups using the WPM data. A to set a suitable speed (by adjusting the speed multiple times significant difference was found between the RSVP groups until they felt it was right for them) in the training session. and the regular reading group (f=6.15 p<0.01). Altering text speed for the Standard RSVP as well as Gestural RSVP conditions was allowed at any time, also after training B. Comprehension in the test session. The built in Apple mail reader was used for Comprehension was calculated by the percentage of correctly the regular text reading. The mail reader allows easy scrolling answered multiple-choice questions in the multiple choice with hand stroke and zoom in and out. comprehension tests. The null hypothesis concerning no difference in comprehension between the conditions when reading texts was kept. Both RSVP methods showed a somewhat higher level of comprehension (10%) as compared to the standard reading method. There was no difference between the two RSVP methods. However this change is not significant enough to reject the null hypothesis (F=2.135, P=0.128). Comprehension Average Standard Deviation Regular reading 72% 15% RSVP 80% 13% Figure 2: Gestural control implementation GRSVP 80% 14% V. RESULTS All subjects completed the experiment. There were only a few C. Task Load problems with understanding what had to be done or how to Task load was produced by combining three task load do it. Although RSVP was a new way of reading for all the questions (mental effort, time pressure, and performance subjects, no one had any problems using the RSVP program. measure). Each one was assigned a value in the range of 1 to 9 In addition, although iPod Touch gestural control was new for on the Likert scale. The null hypothesis concerning the task all the subjects, understanding the mechanism and operating it load was kept, although the standard reading method showed a was easily learned. During the familiarization, some subjects somewhat lower task load with no significance (F=1.048, pressed the Program button which closed the application. P=0.357). A lower standard deviation for the standard reading However, after explaining and emphasizing this principal method shows stable results around the average while the during the familiarization – no such incidents occurred with RSVP methods had higher standard deviations, indicating the actual test text. higher fluctuations. The presentation of the results is divided into five sections: Task load Average Standard Reading Speed, Comprehension, Task Load, Frustration, and Deviation „Future Reference‟ Questionnaire. Under each section, except Regular reading the future reference questionnaire, the null hypotheses are (A) 2.60 1.244 tested. RSVP (B) 3.05 1.643 A. Reading speed GRSVP (C) 3.03 1.678 Reading speed was calculated based on the total amount of D. Frustration words read in the text divided by the end time minus start The null hypothesis concerning no difference in frustration time, including all interruptions (pauses, regressions, speed between the conditions was rejected since it became changes, etc.). Based on the calculation: 262 ÷ significant (F=23.407, p≤0.01). Comparisons of pairs revealed ( ÷ 60) that the use of the standard RSVP method resulted in The reading was significantly faster for both RSVP methods significantly higher (p≤0.05) frustration compared to using as compared to the standard reading method. However, there
  5. 5. 5 regular reading. Comparison of pairs also revealed that the use In the our view, the RSVP method is primarily a way of of Gestural RSVP had no significant difference from the facilitating reading on small screens and not a way of standard reading method and had a significant difference from optimizing reading in itself. However, reading in the near the standard RSVP method. The frustration level can be future may become more mobile and more prone to small generalized as: Regular Reading ~= GRSVP RSVP. screens. Children will be more exposed to small screen devices due to their life style. The obtained reading speed - Frustration Average Standard 50% faster is quite encouraging in view of future needs. Deviation B. Comprehension Regular reading (A) 1.85 1.137 The result that no significant differences in comprehension RSVP (B) 4.25 1.552 were found is consistent with findings from previous GRSVP (C) 1.8 1.152 evaluations ([9] [15] [5] [82] [5]). The lack of differences shows that the GRSVP method at least does not affect comprehension in a negative way. Comprehension rating at the levels reported in the results (72-80%) establishes that the nature of reading have not been degraded to a high-speed low comprehension method, such as skimming (skimming in reading standard texts is faster however reports on average 50% comprehension). C. Task Load The task-load parameters (not including frustration) did not show any significant difference between the standard reading method, the RSVP method, and the GRSVP method. This is consistent with previous findings [19]. There was, however, a non-significant lower task load average for the standard reading method as compared to the RSVP-based methods. This may be because the standard reading method is more familiar to the subjects than the RSVP method. Additional training and usage with the RSVP method may eliminate this non-significant difference. The results on the Likert 1–9 scale (increase indicates task load growth) are on average around 3, Figure 3: The task load inventory including frustration which indicates a low-mid task load. These results are encouraging for general readability on small screens and mobile devices for longer texts SMS. VI. DISCUSSION D. Frustration The results show a significant decrease in frustration level between the GRSVP and RSVP method and a 50% faster Although research results show a significant speed increase reading speed for the GRSVP method over the standard and although there are obvious advantages in small screens reading method. The results also show no significance in (e.g. mobile phones), in our opinion, one of the key issues for comprehension and task load index. These results are in line the low commercial usage of the RSVP method is due, in large with the basic assumptions for this research. This discussion is part, to the frustration factor. The frustration factor may be based on these findings. caused by the perceived lack of control over the reading process as compared to the standard reading method. The A. Reading Speed significant change in frustration was reported for small screen The reading speed for Hebrew readers (the same as English mobile devices in previous research [82] [5] [19]. For the readers) is 100–200 wpm for learning and 200–300 wpm for frustration factor, the significant change between the RSVP comprehension. This corresponds to the average reading and GRSVP methods and the similarity between the GRSVP speeds in English. The lower reading speeds obtained for and standard reading methods are very important. The results children in this research can be attributed to two combined indicate that the standard reading and GRSVP methods reasons. The first is that the reading skills of sixth graders are received low average level while the RSVP method reached a still not as mature as adults. The second is the context of this medium level (and significantly higher). The gestural control research to the subjects was learning, which implies that the and training are assumed to have been formed as procedural relevant range is 100–200. The significant differences between learning, such that the executing it has low cognitive load and using the RSVP method and the standard reading method hence low frustration level. indicate that the RSVP method can improve reading speed on E. Future Use a mobile device; this is similar to the results reported for the RSVP method on desktops by Bailey, R.W. and Bailey, L.M. The common findings were that the excitement attributed to (1999). reading as done in the research, namely with a mobile device like the iPod touch was high. Fifty percent and above rated the
  6. 6. 6 experiment experience (with no significance between groups) better than reading texts in books or desktops. They also noted they would read more for fun and for education than they read today with the new reading methods. This result may be due to temporary enthusiasm attributed to the iPod touch device used. On the other hand, the subjects are frequent users of mobile phones and gadgets and the lack of significant differences between the groups may be a result of each subject participates only in one test condition and could not compare. In any case, this fact may suggest that mobile-device reading is very attractive to the young, dynamic generation; for young people the availability of a mobile device and its ease of use make it very attractive. This research sets to investigate the ability of Gestural RSVP to make RSVP reading method widely used for small screen Figure 4: GRSVP reader used in the experiment device. Changing life-long habit like reading might prove difficult, the future use questionnaire might outline that school VIII. REFERENCES children can adopt it willingly. VII. CONCLUSIONS [1] Bruijn, O. Spence, R. (2000). Rapid Serial Visual Presentation: A space-time trade-off in information presentation. In Proceedings of Advanced Visual Interfaces, The major drawback of the RSVP method appears to be the AVI2000, 189-192. high frustration felt by the subjects using it. An increase in frustration is attributed to the perception that control is lost as [2] Castelhano, M.S. and Muter, P. (2001). Optimizing the compared to the page-like reading process. Therefore, the reading of electronic text using rapid serial visual presentation. most important finding in this research is that frustration with Behaviour Information Technology, 20(4), 237-247. the RSVP method can be reduced to the level of the standard reading method by using the Gestural control over RSVP [3] Cocklin, T.G., Ward, N.J., Chen, H.C. and Juola, J.F. reading. (1984). Factors influencing readability of rapid presented text The initial training and habit change is likely to be a nuisance segments. Memory Cognition, 12(5), 431–442. for the new user, a factor which increases with age due to life habits. There might not be any reason to use the RSVP method [4] Duchnicky, R.L. and Kolers, P.A. (1983). Readability of when traditional text presentation can be used efficiently. In text scrolled on visual display terminals as a function of this research the GRSVP method was found to be just as window size. Human Factors, 25, 683-692. effective as the standard reading method but GRSVP enabled a significantly faster reading speed. As part of the modern life [5] Goldstein, M., Sicheritz, K. and Anneroth, M., (2001). style, society is adopting small screen mobile devices for Reading from a small display using the RSVP technique. extensive usage. RSVP with the Gestural control can provide a Nordic Radio Symposium, NRS01, Nynäshamn, Sweden. viable method for enabling reading high volume texts and not only reading short messages (e.g. SMS). [6] Granaas, M. M., McKay, T. D., Laham, R. D., Hurt, L. D., The life-style technology is moving ahead in giant steps. Juola, J. F. (1984). Reading moving text on a CRT screen. However, reading failed until fairly recently to use the “new” Human Factors, 26(1), 97-104. technology effectively; there were a few unsuccessful reading appliances. Yet, recently, reading devices are attracting [7] Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. (1988). Development of attention and recent effective ones, such as Amazon™ NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and Kindle™, are succeeding commercially. The combination of theoretical research. Human Mental Workload, by P.A. mobile device proliferation and the ability for reading devices Hancock and N. Meshkati (eds.). Elsevier Science Publishers, to take advantage of technology (presentation, storage etc.) B.V.: North-Holland. may become the setting for educating a new generation to read in a more efficient and economical way. [8] Heritz, K. (2000). Applying the Rapid Serial Presentation Technique to Personal Digital Assistants, Master‟s Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Uppsala University. Available at: http://stp.ling.uu.se/ (December 2001). [9] Joula, J.F., Ward, N.J. and MacNamara, T. (1982). Visual search and reading of rapid serial presentations of letter strings, words and text. J. Exper. Psychol.: General, 111, 208- 227.
  7. 7. 7 [10] Juola, J.F., Tiritoglu, A., and Pleunis, J. (1995). Reading [24] Quek, F., McNeill, D., Bryll, R., Duncan, S., Ma, X.-F., text presented on a small display. Applied Ergonomics, 26, Kirbas, C., McCullough, K. E., and Ansari, R. 2002. 227-229. Multimodal human discourse: gesture and speech. ACM Trans. Comput.Hum. Interact. 9, 3, 171–193. [11] Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological [25] Rahman, T. and Muter, P. (1999). Designing an interface Review, 87(4), 329-354. to optimize reading with small display windows. Human Factors, 1(1), 106-117, Human Factors and Ergonomics [12] Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A. and Masson, M.E.J. (1982). Society. What eye fixations tell us about speed-reading and skimming. (Eye-lab Technical Report) Carnegie-Mellon University. [26] Ratcliff, R., McKoon, G.(1981). Automatic and strategic priming in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning [13] Karam, M. and m. c. schraefel. 2005. A study on the use and Verbal Behavior, 20, 204-215 of semaphoric gestures to support secondary task interactions. In CHI ‟05: CHI ‟05 extended abstracts on Human factors in [27] Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of computing systems. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 1961– reading. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice Hall. 1964 [28] Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and [14] Kump, P. (1999). Break-through rapid reading. New information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Jersey: Prentice-Hall Press. Bulletin, 124, 372-422. [15] Masson, MEJ. (1983). Conceptual processing of text [29] Robeck, M.C. and Wallace, R.R. (1990). The Psychology during skimming and rapid sequential reading. Memory and of Reading: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Second edition, Cognition, 11, 262-274. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale: New Jersey. [16] Muter, P., Kruk, R. S., Buttigieg, M. A., and Kang, T. J. [30] Russel, M., Hull, J. and Wesley, R. (2001). Reading with (1988). Reader-controlled computerized presentation of text. RSVP on a Small Screen: Does Font Size Matter? Usability Human Factors, 30, 473-486. News, Winter 2001, Software Usability Research Laboratory, Wichita State University. [17] Muter, P. (1996). Interface Design and Optimization of Reading of Continuous Text. In Cognitive aspects of [31] Seigel A.C (1994) Automatic Processing during Rapid electronic text processing. H. van Oostendorp and S. de Mul Reading: Understanding Point of View, PhD dissertation. (Eds.). Norwood, N.J.:Ablex. [32] Shneiderman, B. (1998). Human-Computer Interaction, [18] Neely, J. H. (1978) Semantic priming and retrieval from 3rd ed., Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, 412-414. lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 106, 226-254 [19] Öquist, G (2001) Adaptive Rapid Serial Visual Presentation, Master‟s Thesis. [20] Öquist, G. and Goldstein, M. (2002). Towards an improved readability on mobile devices: Evaluating Adaptive Rapid Serial Visual Presentation. Full paper submitted to Advanced Visual Interfaces, AVI2002. [21] Osborne, D.J. and Holton, D. (1988). Reading From Screen Vs. Paper: There Is No Difference. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, 1-9. [22] Potter, M. C. (1984). Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP): A method for studying language processing. In New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research. D.E., Kieras and M.A., Just (Eds.). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum. [23] Proctor, R.W. and Proctor, J.D. (1997). Sensation and Perception. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Second Edition, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 53-57.