As a reader, you've certainly had experience reading text on both screens and on paper. You probably have a preference for one over the other. Have you ever wondered whether your brain reacts differently to these different reading formats?
A journalist from PsyPost has reported on a study that tested this question in young readers, ages 6 to 8. The study used EEG (measured by placing a net of electrodes on the head) while children read on screens and on paper.
Here's how the journalist described the study's method:
Each child participated in a reading session where they were exposed to two different conditions: reading from printed paper and reading from a screen. Each condition involved reading age-appropriate expository texts followed by comprehension questions to assess their understanding. The comprehension questions served both to engage the children actively with the texts and to provide a measure of how well they understood the material under each medium.
The researchers were interested in a specific brain wave pattern called the theta/beta ratio. In lots of past research, a high theta/beta ratio has been associated with worse concentration, less attention, and more mind-wandering. The researchers wondered if the theta/beta ratios of each child would differ across the two conditions.
a) Based on what you've read so far, what are the variables in this experiment?
Name of the variable (Conceptual level) | What are the variable's possible levels? | Is this manipulated or measured? | Is this an IV or DV? | For IVs: Is it manipulated as independent groups or within-groups? |
b) What type of experiment is this? Posttest only? Pretest/posttest? Repeated measures? Concurrent measures?
Here's the journalist's description of the study's results:
... a higher theta/beta ratio was observed during screen reading compared to paper reading. This ratio is commonly interpreted as a marker of cognitive load, suggesting that children may experience more difficulty in maintaining focused attention and processing information when reading from screens.
Together, the findings provide neurobiological evidence to support the idea that reading from a screen may impose a greater cognitive burden on children, affecting their ability to concentrate and process information as effectively as when reading from paper.
c) Sketch a bar graph of this study's results.
d) In a design like this, it would be important to employ counterbalancing. Why? Which of the four big validities is counterbalancing addressing?
e) In this study, children in the study read two different, age-appropriate reading passages, and they also read the texts under two different conditions. How might you arrange counterbalancing for this set of circumstances?
The empirical article is open access, on PLOSOne.
Suggested answers:
a) Based on what you've read so far, what are the variables in this experiment?
Name of the variable (Conceptual level) | What are the variable's possible levels? | Is this manipulated or measured? | Is this an IV or DV? | For IVs: Is it manipulated as independent groups or within-groups? |
Reading condition | On screen, on paper | manipulated | IV | Within-groups |
EEG pattern: Theta/beta ratio | Higher ratio to lower ratio | measured | DV | n/a |
b) Repeated measures (it's a within-groups design, and participants' brain activity was measured as/after they read first one type of text and then another type).
c) Theta/beta ratio should be on the y-axis. The two reading conditions are on the x-axis. The bar for "on screen" reading should show a higher theta/beta ratio than the bar for "on paper" reading.
d) Counterbalancing addresses internal validity; specifically, an order effect, which is an internal validity threat that is applicable only to within-groups designs.
e) Some children would need to read Passage A on screen and Passage B on paper, and other children would need to read Passage B on screen and Passage A on paper. Similarly, some children would need to read on screens first, followed by paper; other children would need to read on paper first, followed by screens. In the empirical article, it is not very clear how well they counterbalanced these factors.