Comparative Analysis of Blink Rates During Printed and On-Screen Reading Across Varying Screen Sizes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31584/jhsmr.20241097Keywords:
blink rate, digital screens, electronic devices, text reading, visual fatigueAbstract
Objective: To compare the blink rates during resting periods and while engaging in printed and on-screen reading across different digital screen dimensions.
Material and Methods: This study involved thirty-two university students with normal vision, who were recorded during a 3-minute conversation to establish baseline blink rates and subsequently during four reading conditions. Participants read four passages under different conditions: printed text, smartphone, tablet, and computer screens. Video recordings were then analysed to quantify blink rates (blinks per minute, bpm) for each condition.
Results: Blink rates significantly decreased in all reading scenarios compared to the baseline resting condition (p-value<0.05). Analysis via repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated significant differences in blink rates across all reading conditions (p-value<0.01). Pairwise comparisons revealed that blink rates during smartphone reading were notably lower than printed text, tablets, and computers (p-value<0.05). Conversely, blink rates exhibited no significant differences between printed text and tablet, printed text and computer, and computer and tablet readings (p-value>0.05).
Conclusion: The study reveals a consistent decrease in blink rates during various reading conditions with different digital screens compared to resting states, highlighting the influence of visual engagement on ocular behaviour. Reading with a smartphone has decreased blink rates, which may affect eye health and device use. Understanding these dynamics
can guide ergonomic design to reduce visual discomfort from digital screen use, supporting healthy reading habits in the digital age.
References
Cumaoglu G, Sacici E, Torun K. E-Book versus printed materials: Preferences of university students. Contemp Educ Technol 2013;4:121-35. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/6096.
Ichhpujani P, Singh RB, Foulsham W, Thakur S, Lamba AS. Visual implications of digital device usage in school children: a cross-sectional study. BMC Ophthalmol 2019;19:76-83. doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1082-5.
Schomisch S, Zens M, Mayr P. Are e-readers suitable tools for scholarly work? Results from a user test. Online Inf Rev 2013;37:388-404. doi: 10.1108/OIR-12-2011-0221.
Remington LA, Goodwin D. Clinical anatomy and physiology of the visual system. 3rd ed. United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2011.
Tong J, Lopez MJ, Fakoya AO, Patel BC. Anatomy, head and neck: orbicularis oculi muscle. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
Doughty MJ. Consideration of three types of spontaneous eyeblink activity in normal humans: During reading and video display terminal use, in primary gaze, and while in conversation. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:712-25.
Tsubota K, Nakamori K. Dry eyes and video display terminals. N Engl J Med 1993;328:584. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199302253280817.
Talens-Estarelles C, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Sanchis-Jurado V, Pons ÁM, García-Lázaro S. Blinking kinematics characterisation during digital displays use. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2022;260:1183-93. doi: 10.1007/s00417-021-05490-9.
Abusharha A. Changes in blink rate and ocular symptoms during different reading tasks. Clin Optom 2017;9:133-8. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S142718.
Argilés M, Cardona G, Pérez-Cabré E, Rodríguez M. Blink rate and incomplete blinks in six different controlled hardcopy and electronic reading conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:6679-85. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-16967.
Chu CA, Rosenfield M, Portello JK. Blink patterns: reading from a computer screen versus hard copy. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:297-302. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000157.
Patel S, Henderson R, Bradley L, GALLOWAY B, Hunter L. Effect of visual display unit use on blink rate and tear stability. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:888-92.
Orchard LN, Stern JA. 1 Integr Physiol Behav Sci 1991;26:108-16. doi: 10.1007/BF02691032.
Koslowe KC, Waissman H, Opt B, Biner-Kaplan M, Opt B. The blink frequency relationship between reading from a computer screen and reading from a printed page. Optom Vis Dev 2011;42:168-71.
Arifin WN. Sample size calculator (web). 2024. [homepage on the Internet]. Kuala Lumpur: Wan Nor Arifin; 2024 [cited 2022 Feb 2]. Available from: http://wnarifin.github.io
Lenskiy A, Paprocki R. Blink rate variability during resting and reading sessions. 2016 IEEE Conference on Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century (21CW). Melbourne; IEEE; 2016; p.1-6, doi: 10.1109/NORBERT.2016.7547466.
Lema AK, Anbesu EW. Computer vision syndrome and its determinants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. SAGE Open Med 2022;10:1-19. doi: 10.1177/20503121221142402.
Kim DJ, Lim CY, Gu N, Park CY. Visual fatigue induced by viewing a tablet computer with a high-resolution display. Korean J Ophthalmol KJO 2017;31:388-93. doi: 10.3341/kjo.2016.0095.
Bababekova Y, Rosenfield M, Hue JE, Huang RR. Font size and viewing distance of handheld smartphones. Optom Vis Sci 2011;88:795-797. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182198792.
Buari NH, Md-Isa ANF. Eye Movements Behaviour in Reading Different Text Sizes among University Students. Environ-Behav Proc J 2019;4:75-80. doi: 10.21834/e-bpj.v4i12.1916.
Buari NH, Hamka SN, Md-Isa ANF, Jufri S. Text Size Affects Eye Movement during Reading among Young Adults and Adults with Presbyopia. Siriraj Med J 2022;74:650-57. doi: 10.33192/Smj.2022.76.
Sharmin S, Špakov O, Räihä KJ. The effect of different text presentation formats on eye movement metrics in reading. J Eye Mov Res 2012;5:1-9. doi: 10.16910/jemr.5.3.3.
Bricolo E, Salvi C, Martelli M, Arduino LS, Daini R. The effects of crowding on eye movement patterns in reading. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2015;160:23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.003.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
