The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure
Adults / lifelong learning Paper vs screen Reading and writing Analog vs digital
Links to claims
Supports (1)
| Claim | Basis |
|---|---|
| C3 | Under time pressure screen comprehension fell well below print (50.00 % vs 63.64 %; medium x time interaction p = .03). |
Limits (1)
| Claim | Basis |
|---|---|
| C3 | With free reading time comprehension was equal (print 67.31 % vs screen 68.18 %) and calibration did not differ by medium. C3 weakened 2026-10-06 (time-limit bound). |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.
Source note
Syntes: Delgado & Salmerón (2021) — the screen comprehension deficit appears under time pressure, not with free reading time
Källa: Delgado, P., & Salmerón, L. (2021). The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396
Verified numbers (full text read 2026-10-06)
- N / design: 140 Spanish undergraduates (132 analysed); 2 (medium: printed magazine vs PDF on a 17″ desktop screen with scrolling and zoom) × 2 (time: free vs pressure = 16.5 min, 75 % of mean pilot reading time), between subjects. One 3,010-word expository text; comprehension questions on local and global (inferential) understanding; prediction of performance after reading; mind-wandering probes during reading.
- Free time: comprehension print 67.31 % vs screen 68.18 % (F < 1). Reading time print 24.18 min vs screen 22.49 min.
- Time pressure: print 63.64 % vs screen 50.00 % (F(1,118) = 4.89, p = .03). Medium × time interaction F(1,118) = 4.82, p = .03.
- Calibration: no interaction with medium (F < 1); all groups were reasonably calibrated (predictions 64.55 / 66.41 / 62.76 / 54.10).
- Mind-wandering: under time pressure print readers reduced mind-wandering; screen readers did not.
- Not measured: delayed retention; school-age readers; paginated screens.
Role for C3
Limits (weaken, 2026-10-06): within one design, the screen deficit appears only under time pressure; with free reading time comprehension and calibration are equal. Together with Ackerman & Lauterman 2012 and the null self-paced meta-analytic subgroups (Delgado 2018; Li & Yan 2024), C3's average comprehension advantage is scoped to time-limited reading; not established for self-paced reading. Resolves open question 4 (replaced).
Metadata as recorded
- ID
- MEDIA-017
- Tier
- RCT
- Closed-book follow-up
- nej (comprehension test right after reading; no delayed retention)
- Titel
- The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure
- Författare
- Delgado, P.; Salmerón, L.
- År
- 2021 (Learning and Instruction 71, 101396; issue February 2021)
- Källa/DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396
- URL
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7463273/
- Typ
- 2×2 between-subjects experiment (print magazine vs PDF on 17″ desktop with scroll/zoom × free time vs time pressure at 75 % of pilot reading time); one 3,010-word expository text; comprehension, predictions of performance (calibration), mind-wandering probes
- Åldersgrupp
- vuxen-livslangt (Spanish undergraduates)
- Teman
- papper-vs-skarm;lasning-och-skrivande;analogt-vs-digitalt
- Hämtad
- 2026-10-06
- Paywall
- open access (PMC)
The original files (PDF or abstract) are kept in the project archive and are not published here.