ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The effects of subpixel addressing on users' performance and preferences during reading-related tasks
Full text PdfPdf (309 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) archive
Volume 1 ,  Issue 2  (October 2004) table of contents
Pages: 81 - 101  
Year of Publication: 2004
ISSN:1544-3558
Authors
Leo Gugerty  Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Richard A. Tyrrell  Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Thomas R. Aten  Clemson University, Clemson, SC
K. Andy Edmonds  Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 13,   Downloads (12 Months): 89,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
Save this Article to a Binder    Display Formats: BibTex  EndNote ACM Ref   
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1024083.1024084
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Subpixel addressing is a font-rendering technology that triples the apparent horizontal resolution of liquid crystal displays. Four experiments measured the effects of subpixel addressing (Microsoft's ClearType) relative to standard (aliased) font-rendering techniques. Participants preferred, and gave higher readability ratings to, text that had been rendered using subpixel addressing. Subpixel addressing also significantly improved the accuracy of lexical decisions and the accuracy and speed of sentence comprehension. Subpixel addressing did not affect word-naming performance or reading speed during pleasure reading. Taken together, these findings suggest that subpixel addressing provides substantial benefits to users while adding no costs to display hardware.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Anstis, S. M. 1974. A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. Vis. Res. 14, 589--592.
 
2
Andrews, S. and Heathcote, A. 2001. Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: A matter of some moment? J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 27, 2, 514--540.
 
3
Betrisey, C., Blinn, J. F., Dresevic, B., Hill, B., Hitchcock, G., Keely, B., Mitchell, D. P., Platt, J. C., and Whitted, T. 1999. Displaced filtering for patterned displays. In Society for Information Display 1999 Digest of Technical Papers. 296--299.
 
4
Brysbaert, M. M., Vitu, F., and Schoyens, W. 1996. The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology 10, 3, 385--395.
 
5
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., and Richman, H. 1971. Word Frequency Book. American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., USA, 563--752.
 
6
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
 
7
Chaparro, A. and Young, R. S. L. 1993. Reading with rods: The superiority of central vision for rapid reading. Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. 34, 7, 2341--2347.
 
8
de Groot, A. M. B., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., and van den Eijnden, E. 2002. Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. J. Mem. Lang. 47, 1, 91--124.
 
9
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., and Burke, M. J. 1996. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychol. Methods 1, 2, 170--177.
 
10
Federmeier, K. D. and Kutas, M. 1999. Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Res. 8, 373--392.
 
11
 
12
 
13
Nazir, T. A., Heller, D., and Sussmann, C. 1992. Letter visibility and word recognition: The optimal viewing position in printed words. Percept. Psychophys. 52, 3, 315--328.
 
14
Nazir, T. A., Jacobs, A., and O'Regan, J. K. 1998. Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Mem. Cognition 26, 4, 810--821.
 
15
 
16
O'Regan, J. K. and Jacobs, A. M. 1992. Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 1, 185--197.
 
17
Paap, K., McDonald, J., Schvaneveldt, R., and Noel, R. 1987. Frequency and pronounceability in visually presented naming and lexical decision tasks. In Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading, M. Coltheart, Ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 221--244.
 
18
Pexman, P., Lupker, S., and Hino, Y. 2001. The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number of features effects in lexical decision and word naming tasks. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edinburgh, Scotland.
 
19
Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. 1989. The Psychology of Reading. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
 
20
Riggs, L. A., 1965. Visual acuity. In Vision and Visual Perception, C. H. Grahm, N. R. Bartlett, J. C. Brown, Y. Hsia, L. G. Mueller, and L. A. Riggs, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 321--349.
 
21
Rowley and Traub. 1977. Formula scoring, number right scoring, and test-taking strategy. J. Educ. Meas. 14, 1, 15--22.
 
22
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.
 
23
Sheedy, J. E. and McCarthy, M. 1994. Reading performance and visual comfort with scale to gray compared with black-and-white scanned print. Displays 15, 1, 27--30.
 
24
Stoker, B. 1897. Dracula. Archibald Constable and Company, Westminster.
 
25
Tinker, M. A. and Paterson, D. G. 1941. Eye movements in reading a modern type face and Old English. Am. J. Psychol. 54, 113--115.
 
26
Tinker, M. A. and Paterson, D. G. 1955. The effect of typographical variations upon eye movement in reading. J. Educ. Res. 49, 171--183.
 
27
Tinker, M. A. 1965. Bases for Effective Reading. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 115--201.
 
28
von der Luehe, M. 2003. Overall growth is steady in internet connections, but broadband increases by 36% in past 6 months. Press release, accessed at www.nielsen-netratings.com, on 8/30/2003.
 
29
Wright, S. L., Bailey, I. L., Tuan, K. M., and Wacker, R. T. 1999. Resolution and legibility: A comparison on TFT-LCD's and CRT's. J. SID 7, 4, 253--256.
 
30
Wickens, C. D. and Hollands, J. 2000. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Prentice Hall, New York, NY.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Leo Gugerty: colleagues
Richard A. Tyrrell: colleagues
Thomas R. Aten: colleagues
K. Andy Edmonds: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: