## 4 Discussion
This finding therefore does not support our second hypothesis H2. [PERSON] et al. [7] highlighted that the absence of standardized definitions and measurement units in many of the previous studies on legibility and reading ease complicates the comparison of results across various media, such as print and digital formats. They suggested that clearly defining these typographic and substrate characteristics enables more reliable comparisons, especially when studying the impact of these factors on legibility and cognitive outcomes across different media. The impact of media is certainly evident in printed and digital textbooks. [PERSON] [41] investigated the comparison between printed and digital textbooks, focusing on their influence on learning processes, comprehension, and the cognitive effects they induce. He concluded that digital textbooks could present challenges in promoting long-term retention and deep understanding, primarily due to the nature of digital media, which can disrupt the linear progression of thought. [PERSON] et al. 's study explored how reading and comprehension of illustrated text vary between print and digital formats [42]. Reading time was controlled and limited to five minutes. However, reading time was not measured as a dependent variable but rather set as a constraint, focusing instead on cognitive integration and comprehension as the main outcome variables. It was shown that participants who read from paper demonstrated more integrative processing of text and image-based information. The meta-analysis conducted by [PERSON] et al. [43] showed that reading on paper is better than reading on a screen in terms of reading comprehension, while there were no significant differences between the mediums regarding reading speed. This could be explained by the fact that reading longer texts on a screen may lead to faster eye fatigue and reduced concentration, whereas paper, as a more stable visual format, allows for better maintenance of focus during extended reading. The results of a study [44] aimed at assessing differences in the comprehension of comic books read in digital and print formats showed that reading on paper has a significant advantage over screen reading in terms of reading time. Screen readers were slower in switching between areas of interest compared to the print format, further supporting the belief in slower comprehension of text read on a screen. Although some studies have proposed that digital media may reduce the comprehension of text, a meta-analysis by [PERSON] et al. [31] examined the impact of a screen as the reading medium on the comprehension of narrative texts and revealed results similar to those in our study. Their analysis found no significant difference in reading comprehension between digital and print media for narrative texts, suggesting that the medium (screen vs. paper) does not substantially affect comprehension in this context. In the study by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [45], participants achieved similar results across all reading processes, independent of the medium or the timeframe for reading. These findings are consistent with the previous research [32] indicating that there were no differences between mediums in identifying the core message of the text. In our study, the comprehension score measured through the percentage of correct answers given by the participants remained unaffected by both factors--medium and color combinations. This is consistent with the study by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [46], who found that performances measured through reading time and comprehension remained consistent across print, computer, and tablet media. Also, the study by [PERSON] et al. [36] found that higher brightness contrast improved text legibility, while the background color itself did not have a significant effect on participants' subjective preferences for aesthetics and reading comfort. In [PERSON]'s study [6], the high comprehension score of the text was not compromised even when it was overprinted with Braille characters.