Search

In the rapidly changing circumstances of our increasingly digital world, reading is also becoming an increasingly digital experience: electronic books (e-books) are now outselling print books in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, many readers still view e-books as less readable than print books. The present study thus used combined EEG and eyetracking measures in order to test whether reading from digital media requires higher cognitive effort than reading conventional books. Young and elderly adults read short texts on three different reading devices: a paper page, an e-reader and a tablet computer and answered comprehension questions about them while their eye movements and EEG were recorded. The results of a debriefing questionnaire replicated previous findings in that participants overwhelmingly chose the paper page over the two electronic devices as their preferred reading medium. Online measures, by contrast, showed shorter mean fixation durations and lower EEG theta band voltage density – known to covary with memory encoding and retrieval – for the older adults when reading from a tablet computer in comparison to the other two devices. Young adults showed comparable fixation durations and theta activity for all three devices. Comprehension accuracy did not differ across the three media for either group. We argue that these results can be explained in terms of the better text discriminability (higher contrast) produced by the backlit display of the tablet computer. Contrast sensitivity decreases with age and degraded contrast conditions lead to longer reading times, thus supporting the conclusion that older readers may benefit particularly from the enhanced contrast of the tablet. Our findings thus indicate that people's subjective evaluation of digital reading media must be dissociated from the cognitive and neural effort expended in online information processing while reading from such devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: “Nudging”—modifying environments to change people’s behavior, often without their conscious awareness—can improve health, but public acceptability of nudging is largely unknown. Methods: We compared acceptability, in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA), of government interventions to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Three nudge interventions were assessed: i. reducing portion Size, ii. changing the Shape of the drink containers, iii. changing their shelf Location; alongside two traditional interventions: iv. Taxation and v. Education. We also tested the hypothesis that describing interventions as working through non-conscious processes decreases their acceptability. Predictors of acceptability, including perceived intervention effectiveness, were also assessed. Participants (n = 1093 UK and n = 1082 USA) received a description of each of the five interventions which varied, by randomisation, in how the interventions were said to affect behaviour: (a) via conscious processes; (b) via non-conscious processes; or (c) no process stated. Acceptability was derived from responses to three items. Results: Levels of acceptability for four of the five interventions did not differ significantly between the UK and US samples; reducing portion size was less accepted by the US sample. Within each country, Education was rated as most acceptable and Taxation the least, with the three nudge-type interventions rated between these. There was no evidence to support the study hypothesis: i.e. stating that interventions worked via non-conscious processes did not decrease their acceptability in either the UK or US samples. Perceived effectiveness was the strongest predictor of acceptability for all interventions across the two samples. Conclusion: In conclusion, nudge interventions to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages seem similarly acceptable in the UK and USA, being more acceptable than taxation, but less acceptable than education. Contrary to prediction, we found no evidence that highlighting the non-conscious processes by which nudge interventions may work decreases their acceptability. However, highlighting the effectiveness of all interventions has the potential to increase their acceptability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]