{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032355915065722954, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.6571428571428575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Do serifs provide an advantage in the recognition of written words?

A neglected issue in the literature on visual-word recognition is the careful examination of parameters such as font, size, or interletter/interword spacing on reading times. Here we analysed whether serifs (i.e., the small features at the end of strokes) play a role in lexical access. Traditionally, serif fonts have been considered easier to read than sans serif fonts, but prior empirical evidence is scarce and inconclusive. Here we conducted a lexical decision experiment (i.e., a word/nonword discrimination task) in which we compared words from the same family (Lucida) either with a serif font or with a sans serif font—in both a block list and a mixed list. Results showed a small, but significant advantage in response times for words written in a sans serif font. Thus, sans serif fonts should be the preferred choice for text in computer screens—as already is the case for guide signs on roads, trains, etc.