journal article·2024-12-31Open access

Eye-Tracking Study on Reading Fluency in Relation to Typeface Pleasantness Influenced by Cross-Modal Correspondence Between Taste and Shape

Tanja Medved, Anja Podlesek, Klementina Možina

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 1

Abstract

Reading fluency depends on the typographic design. Letters can have different shapes that evoke different feelings in the reader and influence reading fluency. Previous studies that explored the link between typeface shape and taste and its impact on reading and readers’ attitudes mainly focused on shorter texts or individual words. In contrast, our study investigated how the taste (sweetness) attributed to the typeface is related to reading fluency and the pleasantness of the typeface during reading longer texts, and whether these relationships are the same in children and adult readers. We found that readers of both age groups perceived rounded letters as sweeter than angular letters. The perceived sweetness correlated positively with the pleasantness of the typeface and reading fluency. Younger readers showed a higher general rating of sweetness and a stronger relationship between the perceived sweetness and the pleasantness of the typeface than older, more experienced readers. This suggests that the sweeter and more pleasant the typeface is perceived to be, the faster it can be read. When fast processing of longer texts is required, we recommend the use of rounded typefaces with more organic shapes, including serif typefaces with some characteristics of old-style typefaces, rather than using angular, sans serif typefaces.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Color perception and design

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, University of Ljubljana, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Funding

Slovenian Research Agency

References (100+)

Show source-provided references
1. Legibility Implications of Embellished Display Typefaces
2. Medved, T., Podlesek, A., and Možina, K. (2023). Influence of Letter Shape on Readers’ Emotional Experience, Reading Fluency, and Text Comprehension and Memorisation. Front. Psychol., 14.10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1107839 ↗
3. Fonts of Wider Letter Shapes Improve Recognition in Peripheral Vision10.1080/00140139.2021.1991001 ↗
4. Using Typography to Expand the Design Space of Data Visualization10.1016/j.sheji.2016.05.003 ↗
5. Brath, R. (2018). Text in Visualization: Extending the Visualization Design Space. [Ph.D. Thesis, London South Bank University].
6. Bessemans, A. (2016). Matilda: A Typeface for Children with Low Vision. Digital Fonts and Reading, World Scientific.10.1142/9789814759540_0002 ↗
7. Typefaces for Children’s Reading10.18146/2213-7653.2016.268 ↗
8. How Does Typeface Familiarity Affect Reading Performance and Reader Preference?10.1075/idj.20.1.02bei ↗
9. The Effects of Font on Vocabulary Memorization
10. The Influence of Font Type on Information Recall
11. Day, S.L., Atilgan, N., Giroux, A.E., and Sawyer, B.D. (2024). The Influence of Format Readability on Children’s Reading Speed and Comprehension. Educ. Sci., 14.10.3390/educsci14080854 ↗
12. Neural Processing of Lower- and Upper-Case Text in Second Language Learners of English: An fMRI Study10.1080/23273798.2017.1384028 ↗
13. The Role of Word Recognition, Oral Reading Fluency and Listening Comprehension in the Simple View of Reading: A Study in an Intermediate Depth Orthography10.1007/s11145-016-9691-3 ↗
14. Fluency: Bridge Between Decoding and Reading Comprehension10.1598/RT.58.6.2 ↗
15. Cruz, J., Mendes, S.A., Marques, S., Alves, D., and Cadime, I. (2022). Face-to-Face Versus Remote: Effects of an Intervention in Reading Fluency During COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Educ., 6.10.3389/feduc.2021.817711 ↗
16. Repeated Reading to Enhance Fluency: Old Approaches and New Directions10.1007/s11881-999-0027-8 ↗
17. Influence of Increased Letter Spacing and Font Type on the Reading Ability of Dyslexic Children10.1007/s11881-018-0164-z ↗
18. The Font-Size Effect on Judgments of Learning: Does It Exemplify Fluency Effects or Reflect People’s Beliefs about Memory?10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007 ↗
19. Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type Has Effects on Web Text Readability?10.5539/ies.v6n3p26 ↗
20. Su, N., Li, T., Zheng, J., Hu, X., Fan, T., and Luo, L. (2018). How Font Size Affects Judgments of Learning: Simultaneous Mediating Effect of Item-Specific Beliefs about Fluency and Moderating Effect of Beliefs about Font Size and Memory. PLoS ONE, 13.10.1371/journal.pone.0200888 ↗
21. Emotions in Typographic Design: An Empirical Examination
22. Typeface Features and Legibility Research10.1016/j.visres.2019.05.003 ↗
23. The Effect of Screen Size of Mobile Devices on Reading Efficiency10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_42 ↗
24. Commentary: Is Disfluency Desirable?10.1007/s11409-016-9156-8 ↗
25. Dressler, E. (2024, June 29). Understanding the Effect of Font Type on Reading Comprehension/Memory under Time-Constraints” (2019). Theses/Capstones/Creative Projects. 70. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/university_honors_program/70.
26. Disfluent Fonts Don’t Help People Solve Math Problems10.1037/xge0000049 ↗
27. Preference Fluency in Choice
28. A Rose in Any Other Font Would Not Smell as Sweet: Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Categorization10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.010 ↗
29. Metacognitive Judgments and Disfluency—Does Disfluency Lead to More Accurate Judgments, Better Control, and Better Performance?10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.012 ↗
30. Fortune Is Fickle: Null-Effects of Disfluency on Learning Outcomes10.1007/s11409-015-9151-5 ↗
31. Sanchez, C.A., and Naylor, J.S. (2018). Disfluent Presentations Lead to the Creation of More False Memories. PLoS ONE, 13.10.1371/journal.pone.0191735 ↗
32. “The Struggle Isn’t Real”: How Need for Cognitive Closure Moderates Inferences from Disfluency10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.042 ↗
33. Is Disfluency Desirable for Learning?10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.004 ↗
34. Effect of Disfluency on Learning Outcomes, Metacognitive Judgments and Cognitive Load in Computer Assisted Learning Environments10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.001 ↗
35. When Disfluency Is—And Is Not—A Desirable Difficulty: The Influence of Typeface Clarity on Metacognitive Judgments and Memory10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8 ↗
36. Reading Aloud Improves Proofreading (but Using Sans Forgetica Font Does Not)10.1037/mac0000011 ↗
37. Sans Forgetica Is Not Desirable for Learning10.1080/09658211.2020.1797096 ↗
38. Perceptually Fluent Features of Study Words Do Not Inflate Judgements of Learning: Evidence from Font Size, Highlights, and Sans Forgetica Font Type10.1007/s11409-021-09284-6 ↗
39. Disfluent Difficulties Are Not Desirable Difficulties: The (Lack of) Effect of Sans Forgetica on Memory10.1080/09658211.2020.1758726 ↗
40. Sans Forgetica Is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts Are Not Always Desirable Difficulties10.1177/21582440211056624 ↗
41. Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823 ↗
42. Fortune Favors the (Bold and the Italicized): Effects of Disfluency on Educational Outcomes10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012 ↗
43. Distracted While Reading? Changing to a Hard-to-Read Font Shields against the Effects of Environmental Noise and Speech on Text Memory10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01196 ↗
44. Visual Perceptual Load Induces Inattentional Deafness10.3758/s13414-011-0144-4 ↗
45. Food Packages and Communication through Typeface Design: The Exoticism of Exotypes10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.009 ↗
46. Say What? How the Interplay of Tweet Readability and Brand Hedonism Affects Consumer Engagement10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.071 ↗
47. Lupton, E. (1987). Rhetorical Handbook. Design Papers 5, Nova Scotia College of Art and Design.
48. Typographic Influences on Reading10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02317.x ↗
49. Song And Typography: Expressing The Lyrics Visually Through Lyrical Typography
50. Wilkins, A., Smith, K., and Penacchio, O. (2020). The Influence of Typography on Algorithms That Predict the Speed and Comfort of Reading. Vision, 4.10.20944/preprints202002.0212.v1 ↗
51. The Role of Font Size and Font Style in Younger and Older Adults’ Predicted and Actual Recall Performance10.1080/13825585.2015.1102194 ↗
52. Reading Fluency as a Predictor of School Outcomes across Grades 4–910.3389/fpsyg.2017.00200 ↗
53. Metacognition and Consumer Judgment: Fluency is Pleasant but Disfluency Ignites Interest10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.008 ↗
54. Price Font Disfluency: Anchoring Effects on Future Price Expectations10.1016/j.jretai.2017.09.003 ↗
55. Contributions of Beliefs and Processing Fluency to the Effect of Relatedness on Judgments of Learning10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6 ↗
56. If It’s Hard to Read, It’s Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x ↗
57. Effects of Typeface and Font Size on Legibility for Children
58. Typography for Children May Be Inappropriately Designed10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01402.x ↗
59. The Optimum Font Size and Type for Students Aged 9–12 Reading Arabic Characters on Screen: A Case Study10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012115 ↗
60. Katzir, T., Hershko, S., and Halamish, V. (2013). The Effect of Font Size on Reading Comprehension on Second and Fifth Grade Children: Bigger Is Not Always Better. PLoS ONE, 8.10.1371/journal.pone.0074061 ↗
61. Amare, N., and Manning, A. (2012, January 8–10). Seeing Typeface Personality: Emotional Responses to Form as Tone. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Orlando, FL, USA.10.1109/IPCC.2012.6408605 ↗
62. What’s in a Font?: Ideological Perceptions of Typography10.1080/10510974.2019.1692884 ↗
63. Modeling Reader’s Emotional State Response on Document’s Typographic Elements10.1155/2011/206983 ↗
64. The Rhetoric of Typography: The Persona of Typeface and Text
65. All Dressed Up with Something to Say: Effects of Typeface Semantic Associations on Brand Perceptions and Consumer Memory10.1207/S15327663JCP1202_03 ↗
66. ‘The Sweet Taste of Maluma’: Crossmodal Associations Between Tastes and Words
67. Jordan, T.R., AlShamsi, A.S., Yekani, H.A.K., AlJassmi, M., Al Dosari, N., Hermena, E.W., and Sheen, M. (2017). What’s in a Typeface? Evidence of the Existence of Print Personalities in Arabic. Front. Psychol., 8.10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01229 ↗
68. How to Use Five Letterforms to Gauge a Typeface’s Personality: A Research-Driven Method10.2190/LQVL-EJ9Y-1LRX-7C95 ↗
69. Perception of Fonts: Perceived Personality Traits and Uses
70. The Shape of You: Do Individuals Associate Particular Geometric Shapes with Identity?10.1007/s12144-021-02297-z ↗
71. Symmetry and Its Role in the Crossmodal Correspondence between Shape and Taste10.3758/s13414-017-1463-x ↗
72. “Bouba” and “Kiki” in Namibia? A Remote Culture Make Similar Shape–Sound Matches, but Different Shape–Taste Matches to Westerners10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.007 ↗
73. The Kiki-Bouba Paradigm: Where Senses Meet And Greet10.30877/IJMH.3.3.2016.240-252 ↗
74. Crossmodal Correspondences: Innate or Learned?10.1068/i0526ic ↗
75. Cross-Cultural Differences in Crossmodal Correspondences between Basic Tastes and Visual Features10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01365 ↗
76. Cross-Sensory Correspondences and Symbolism in Spoken and Written Language10.1037/xlm0000253 ↗
77. The Taste of Typefaces in Different Countries and Languages10.1037/aca0000120 ↗
78. The Sweetest Thing: The Influence of Angularity, Symmetry, and the Number of Elements on Shape-Valence and Shape-Taste Matches
79. Predictive Packaging Design: Tasting Shapes, Typefaces, Names, and Sounds10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.005 ↗
80. Hedonic Mediation of the Crossmodal Correspondence between Taste and Shape10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.010 ↗
81. The Taste of Typeface10.1177/2041669515593040 ↗
82. The Role of Typeface Curvilinearity on Taste Expectations and Perception10.1016/j.ijgfs.2017.11.007 ↗
83. Visual Elements of Subjective Preference Modulate Amygdala Activation10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.008 ↗
84. Assessing Crossmodal Correspondences in Exotic Fruit Juices: The Case of Shape and Sound Symbolism10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.004 ↗
85. The Shapes Associated with the Concept of ‘Sweet and Sour’ Foods10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.03.012 ↗
86. Establishing Boundary Conditions for Multiple Design Elements Congruent with Taste Expectations10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103742 ↗
87. Wang, Q.J., Reinoso Carvalho, F., Persoone, D., and Spence, C. (2017). Assessing the Effect of Shape on the Evaluation of Expected and Actual Chocolate Flavour. Flavour, 6.10.1186/s13411-017-0052-1 ↗
88. Hyndman, S. (2016). Why Fonts Matter: A Multisensory Analysis of Typography and Its Influence from Graphic Designer and Academic Sarah Hyndman, Ebury Publishing.
89. Affect and Persuasion: The Influence of Pleasantness and Arousal on Attitude Formation and Message Elaboration10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199707)14:4<315::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-C ↗
90. The Dilemma of Flavor and Color in the Choice of Packaging by Children10.1108/17473611111114803 ↗
91. Semiotics and perception: Do labels convey the same messages to older and younger consumers?10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00336.x ↗
92. Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development, McGraw-Hill.
93. McLean, R. (2000). The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography, Thames and Hudson.
94. Možina, K. (2003). Knjižna Tipografija, BiblioThecaria Filozofska fakulteta.
95. Bryan-Kinns, N., Blanford, A., Curzon, P., and Nigay, L. (2007). Measuring the Aesthetics of Reading. People and Computers XX—Engage, Springer.10.1007/978-1-84628-664-3 ↗
96. Petit, O., Velasco, C., Cheok, A.D., and Spence, C. (2015, January 16). Consumer Sensory Neuroscience in the Context of Food Marketing. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Iskandar, Malaysia.10.1145/2832932.2856226 ↗
97. Picard, R.W. (2024, June 29). The Aesthetics of Reading. Available online: https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/the-aesthetics-of-reading-2/.
98. Tobii Pro Tobii Studio (2017). User’s Manual, Version 3.4.8, Tobii AB.
99. (2009). Graphic Technology and Photography—Viewing Conditions (Standard No. ISO 3664).
100. (2015). Graphic Technology—Displays for Colour Proofing—Characteristics (Standard No. ISO 12646).