本論文的目的為探討顯示介面對閱讀績效、視覺空間作業績效與視覺疲勞的影響。此論文研究分為三個實驗，第一個實驗探討電子書(Electronic books, E-book)與傳統紙本書(Conventional book, C-book)對閱讀績效(閱讀速度、閱讀準確度)及客觀視覺疲勞(閃光融合閾值)的影響，共有20位大學生參與本實驗，研究結果顯示閱讀E-book所造成的視覺疲勞顯著高於C-book，此外C-book的閱讀績效也顯著高於E-book，另外也發現女性受試者不管在何種顯示介面下的閱讀績效均高於男性。
第二個實驗旨在探討電腦化測驗(平板電腦，Tablet PC)及紙筆測驗方式對視覺空間能力、視覺空間短期記憶、主觀視覺疲勞及主觀偏好的影響。共有27位大學生參與本實驗，而實驗結果顯示，除了視覺空間短期記憶作業中的Corsi block task的作答時間未達顯著水準外，其餘所有量測變項均受顯示介面因子顯著的影響。在進行視覺空間短期記憶作業時，紙筆測驗的得分比電腦化測驗高了15%，而作答時間也縮短了20%；在視覺空間能力方面，紙本測驗的得分則又比電腦化測驗高了35%。此外，相較於電腦化測驗，紙筆測驗的主觀偏好較高，而且主觀視覺疲勞程度也較低。
第三個實驗旨在探討顯示介面(平板電腦 VS. 傳統紙筆)、科系背景(設計類科系 VS. 科技類科系)及性別等因子對視覺空間能力及視覺空間短期記憶的影響。共有60位大學生參與此實驗，實驗結果顯示顯示介面因子顯著影響所有的量測變項，而且是使用紙筆的測驗績效高於使用平板電腦。另外結果也發現顯示介面因子與科系背景因子的交互作用是顯著的，當使用平板電腦進行測驗時，設計類科系學生的視覺空間能力測驗績效會比科技類科系學生來的好；但在使用紙筆進行測驗時，科技類科系學生的測驗績效則高於設計類科系學生。本實驗的結果並未發現性別因子對於該實驗的量測變項造成顯著的差異。
綜合以上三個實驗結果可得知，電腦螢幕不只在文字的閱讀績效上會低於傳統紙本，進一步運用電腦螢幕進行視覺空間能力的測驗時，測驗績效也低於紙筆測驗的方式，而且不同科系背景會產生不同程度的影響。因此，電腦螢幕顯示的品質及人機介面有其改善的必要，一方面藉以提升閱讀績效，另一方面避免測驗時低估了受試者的能力。

References

Alescio-Lautier, B., Michel, B.F., Herrera, C., Elahmadi, A., Chambon, C., Touzet, C. and Paban, V., 2007. Visual and visuospatial short-term memory in mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer disease: Role of attention. Neuropsychologia, 45 (8), 1948-1960.
Anastakis, D.J., Hamstra, S.J. and Matsumoto, E.D., 2000. Visual-spatial abilities in surgical training. The American Journal of Surgery, 179 (6), 469-471.
Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G. and Gordon, H.B., 1974. Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Academic Press, 47-89.
Belmore, S.M., 1985. Reading computer-presented text. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23 (1), 12-14.
Bennet, G.K., Seashore, H.G. and Wesman, A.G., 1972. Differential aptitude test: Spatial relations (form t). New York: Psychology Corporation.
Borg, G., 1982. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 14 (5), 377-381.
Boss, R.W., 2004. E-book: An uncertain future. Tech Notes, American Library Association.
Bruyer, R. and Scailquin, J.C., 1998. The visuospatial sketchpad for mental images: Testing the multicomponent model of working memory. Acta Psychologica, 98 (1), 17-36.
Carlson, S., 2002. Students complain about devices for reading e-books, study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Information Technology section, 26 August, <http://chronicle.com/free/2002/08/2002082601t.htm >.
Carroll, J.B., 1993. Human cognitive abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Casey, M.B. and Brabeck, M.M., 1989. Exceptions to the male advantage on a spatial task: Family handedness and college major as factors identifying women who excel. Neuropsychologia, 27 (5), 689-696.
Chi, C.-F. and Lin, F.-T., 1998. A comparison of seven visual fatigue assessment techniques in three data-acquisition vdt tasks. Human Factors, 40, 577-590.
Choi, I.-C., Kim, K.S. and Boo, J., 2003. Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20 (3), 295-320.
Chung, S.-C., Lee, B., Tack, G.-R., Yi, J.-H., Lee, H.-W., Kwon, J.-H., Choi, M.-H., Eom, J.-S. and Sohn, J.-H., 2008. Physiological mechanism underlying the improvement in visuospatial performance due to 30% oxygen inhalation. Applied Ergonomics, 39 (2), 166-170.
Cox, J., 2004. E-book challenges and opportunities. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (10), <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october04/cox/10cox.html>.
Crawford, M., Chaffin, R. and Fitton, L., 1995. Cognition in social context. Learning and Individual Differences, 7 (4), 341-362.
Cushman, W.H., 1986. Reading from microfiche, a vdt, and the printed page: Subjective fatigue and performance. Human Factors, 28 (1), 63-73.
Dillon, A. and Gabbard, R., 1998. Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3), 322-349.
Doctorow, C., 2004. Ebooks: Neither e, nor books. O'Reilly Emerging Technologies Conference. San Diego.
Egan, D.E., Remde, J.R., Landauer, T.K., Lochbaum, C.C. and Gomez, L.M., 1989. Behavioral evaluation and analysis of a hypertext browser. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Wings for the Mind, 205-210.
Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H. and Dermen, D., 1976. Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Gathercole, S.E., Alloway, T.P., Willis, C. and Adams, A.M., 2006. Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93 (3), 265-281.
Gould, J.D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N. and Minuto, A., 1987. Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a single-variable explanation. Human Factors, 29 (3), 269-299.
Halpern, D.F. and Tan, U., 2001. Stereotypes and steroids: Using a psychobiosocial model to understand cognitive sex differences. Brain and Cognition, 45 (3), 392-414.
Hammer, R.E., Hoffer, N. and King, W.L., 1995. Relationships among gender, cognitive style, academic major, and performance on the piaget water-level task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 771-778.
Hashimoto, K., 1963. Physiological meaning of the critical flicker frequency (cff) and some problems in their measurement – theory and practices of the flicker test. Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, 5, 563–578.
Ichikawa, S., 1983. Verbal memory span, visual memory span, and their correlations with cognitive tasks. Japanese Psychological Research, 25 (4), 173-180.
Inhoff, A.W. and Liu, W., 1998. The perceptual span and oculomotor activity during the reading of chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24 (1), 20-34.
Isono, H., Takahashi, S., Takiguchi, Y. and Yamada, C., 2005. Measurement of visual fatigue from reading on electronic paper. Journal of the Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers, 59 (3), 403-406.
Kalichman, S.C., 1986. Horizontality as a function of sex and academic major. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63 (2), 903-906.
Kang, Y.-Y., Wang, M.-J.J. and Lin, R., 2009. Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30 (2), 49-52.
Knulst, W. and Kraaykamp, G., 1998. Trends in leisure reading: Forty years of research on reading in the netherlands. Poetics, 26 (1), 21-41.
Lawton, C.A. and Hatcher, D.W., 2005. Gender differences in integration of images in visuospatial memory. Sex Roles, 53 (9), 717-725.
Lee, D.-S., Shieh, K.-K., Jeng, S.-C. and Shen, I.H., 2008. Effect of character size and lighting on legibility of electronic papers. Displays, 29 (1), 10-17.
Li, Z., Jiao, K., Chen, M. and Wang, C., 2004. Reducing the effects of driving fatigue with magnitopuncture stimulation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36 (4), 501-505.
Linn, M.C. and Petersen, A.C., 1985. Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56 (6), 1479-1498.
Loring-Meier, S. and Halpern, D.F., 1999. Sex differences in visuospatial working memory: Components of cognitive processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6 (3), 464-471.
Margarita, E. and Leyva, R., 2003. The impact of the internet on the reading and information practices of a university student community: The case of unam. New Review of Libraries and Lifelong Learning, 4 (1), 137 - 157.
Martin, L.A. and Platt, M.W., 2001. Printing and screen reading in the medical school curriculum: Guttenberg vs. The cathode ray tube. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20 (3), 143-148.
Mayes, D.K., Sims, V.K. and Koonce, J.M., 2001. Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28 (6), 367-378.
Mazzeo, J., Druesne, B., Raffeld, P.C., Checketts, K.T. and Muhlstein, A. eds. 1991. Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil scores for two clep general examinations, New York: College Board Publications.
Milner, B., 1971. Interhemispheric differences in the localization of psychological processes in man. British Medical Bulletin, 27 (3), 272-277.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Rettinger, D.A., Shah, P. and Hegarty, M., 2001. How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130 (4), 621-640.
Nielson, J., 2000. Designing web usability. (Indianapolis: New Riders).
Noyes, J.M. and Garland, K.J., 2003. Vdt versus paper-based text: Reply to mayes, sims and koonce. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31 (6), 411-423.
Ofte, S.H., 2002. Right–left discrimination: Effects of handedness and educational background. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43 (3), 213-219.
Olson, J.R. and Olson, G.M., 1990. The growth of cognitive modeling in human-computer interaction since goms. Human-Computer Interaction, 5 (2&3), 221-265.
Paivio, A. and Clark, J.M., 1991. Static versus dynamic imagery. In Cornoldi, C. and Mcdaniel, M.A. eds. Imagery and cognition. New York: Springer.
Parshall, C.G., Spray, J.A., Kalohn, J.C. and Davey, T., 2002. Practical considerations in computer-based testing New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pearsall, J. (Ed.), 1998. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Perry, R.J. and Hodges, J.R., 1999. Attention and executive deficits in alzheimer's disease: A critical review. Brain 122 (3), 383-404.
Press, L., 2000. Personal computing: From p-books to e-books. Communications of the ACM, 43 (5), 17-21.
Quaiser-Pohl, C. and Lehmann, W., 2002. Girls" Spatial abilities: Charting the contributions of experiences and attitudes in different academic groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 245-260.
Rayner, K., Li, X., Williams, C.C., Cave, K.R. and Well, A.D., 2007. Eye movements during information processing tasks: Individual differences and cultural effects. Vision Research, 47 (21), 2714-2726.
Rizzo, M., Anderson, S.W., Dawson, J., Myers, R. and Ball, K., 2000. Visual attention impairments in alzheimer's disease. Neurology, 54 (10), 1954-1959.
Rosén, M., 2001. Gender differences in reading performance on documents across countries. Reading and Writing, 14 (1), 1-38.
Sahakian, B.J. and Owen, A.M., 1992. Computerized assessment in neuropsychiatry using cantab: Discussion paper. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 85 (7), 399-402.
Schaeffer, G.A., Reese, C.M., Steffen, M., Mckinley, R.L. and Mills, C.N., 1993. Field Test of a Computer-Based GRE General Test.
Schilit, B., 1999. Why e-read? Finding opportunities in the merger of paper and computer. Future of Print Media Journal, <http://www.futureprint.kent.edu/ articles/ schilit01.htm.>.
Shah, P. and Miyake, A., 1996. The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125 (1), 4-27.
Shieh, K.-K. and Lin, C.-C., 2000. Effects of screen type, ambient illumination, and color combination on vdt visual performance and subjective preference. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26 (5), 527-536.
Shieh, K.K., Chen, M.H. and Wang, Y.W., 2005. Effects of display medium and luminance contrast on memory performance and eeg response. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35 (9), 797-805.
Thurstone, L.L. and Thurstone, T.G., 1941. Factorial studies of intelligence. Psychometrics Monographs, 2.
Van Orden, K.F. and Broyles, J.W., 2000. Visuospatial task performance as a function of two- and three-dimensional display presentation techniques. Displays, 21 (1), 17-24.
Vlachos, F., Andreou, G. and Andreou, E., 2003. Biological and environmental influences in visuospatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 13 (4), 339-347.
Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T. and Archer, T., 2005. Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21 (2), 377-394.
Wang, M.J.J. and Huang, C.L., 2004. Evaluating the eye fatigue problem in wafer inspection. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 17 (3), 444-447.
Weiss, E.M., Kemmler, G., Deisenhammer, E.A., Fleischhacker, W.W. and Delazer, M., 2003. Sex differences in cognitive functions. Personality and Individual Differences, 35 (4), 863-875.
Woo, H., 2005. The 2004 user survey at the university of Hong Kong libraries. College & Research Libraries, 66 (2), 115–135.