2,396
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Fonts of wider letter shapes improve letter recognition in parafovea and periphery

ORCID Icon &
Pages 753-761 | Received 02 Nov 2020, Accepted 28 Sep 2021, Published online: 27 Oct 2021

Figures & data

Figure 1. From the top: Helvetica Neue Condensed with a height/width ratio of 1 h/0.3w and 21 units of spacing between two vertical strokes as in ‘nn’, Helvetica Neue Roman height/width ratio of 1 h/0.5w and 24 units of spacing between two vertical strokes, Helvetica Neue Extended height/width ratio of 1 h/0.6w and 23 units of spacing between two vertical strokes. Except for the variable of letter width, they all have near identical letter features.

Test font stimuli. Helvetica Neue Condensed, Helvetica Neue Roman and Helvetica Neue Extended.
Figure 1. From the top: Helvetica Neue Condensed with a height/width ratio of 1 h/0.3w and 21 units of spacing between two vertical strokes as in ‘nn’, Helvetica Neue Roman height/width ratio of 1 h/0.5w and 24 units of spacing between two vertical strokes, Helvetica Neue Extended height/width ratio of 1 h/0.6w and 23 units of spacing between two vertical strokes. Except for the variable of letter width, they all have near identical letter features.

Figure 2. Mean recognition for the tested fonts. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Experiment 1. Mean recognition for the tested fonts. All were significantly different.
Figure 2. Mean recognition for the tested fonts. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Figure 3. Mean mislocation rates for the tested fonts. Mislocation by chance is represented by the dotted line. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Experiment 1. Mean mislocation rates for the tested fonts. Condensed and Extended were significantly different.
Figure 3. Mean mislocation rates for the tested fonts. Mislocation by chance is represented by the dotted line. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Figure 4. Mean recognition for the tested fonts. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Experiment 2. Mean recognition for the tested fonts. All were significantly different.
Figure 4. Mean recognition for the tested fonts. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Figure 5. Mean mislocation rates for the tested fonts. Mislocation by chance is represented by the dotted line. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Experiment 2. Mean mislocation rates for the tested fonts. Condensed and Extended were significantly different.
Figure 5. Mean mislocation rates for the tested fonts. Mislocation by chance is represented by the dotted line. Error bars represent standard deviation. Comparisons marked with ‘*’ were significantly different (p < .05).

Figure 6. When the narrower fonts Helvetica Neue Condensed and Helvetica Neue Roman are proportionally magnified to have the same width as Helvetica Neue Extended, they take up more vertical space on the page.

Illustration showing different width result in same height and same width result in different height.
Figure 6. When the narrower fonts Helvetica Neue Condensed and Helvetica Neue Roman are proportionally magnified to have the same width as Helvetica Neue Extended, they take up more vertical space on the page.