5 ms·

Vilifying screen time isn't great either, are the negative effects coming from actual screens or brightly-coloured games designed for dopamine hits? Is reading

Vilifying screen time isn't great either, are the negative effects coming from actual screens or brightly-coloured games designed for dopamine hits? Is reading on a screen functionally different from a book in terms of attention span?

perfunctory 7y ago
Apparently yes "...Conclusion: Main findings show that students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally..." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_l...
- wildduck 7y ago
  Wonder how that hold up against E-Ink reader (almost like paper type of readers).
- danielbln 7y ago
  "Digitally" seems to mean computer screen in that study. I wonder how smaller screens compare, and different display types (LCD, vs OLED, vs eInk). A kindle should be functionally pretty much like paper.
  - ses1984 7y ago
    ... In some ways. Kindle interface is okayish but you still can't flip back and forth as effortlessly as actual paper.
    - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
      I remember reading a study that concluded retention from reading on a Kindle / e-ink device was lower. They concluded that the physical differences of books (size, weight, feel, cover) may help to form memories. I can't say the above is proven fact. Citation definitely needed, but I find it a compelling idea, and would like to learn more. Incidentally efficient language learning also uses somewhat superfluous activities to help create memories and improve retention. Our brains do seem to thrive off stimulation from multiple sources.
      - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
        Wow over 5 years ago! Seems my retention of reading something digitally wasn't too bad ;-) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_l... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb...
    - theshrike79 7y ago
      eInk readers like Kindle only work for linear stuff, the browsing experience just plain sucks. Most digital readers aren't much better, though.
- Already__Taken 7y ago
  Are there studies about how much you can read? I can see this getting applied to all reading and making students read from textbooks as if it will help. Were reading isn't what's important, rather finding what to read is.
- sdan 7y ago
  I'm curious as to why. Would e-ink make a difference? What's there to learn differently from screen to paper?
  - cbzbc 7y ago
    There are differences - like the ability to more easily flick backwards and forwards by several pages - whether this is enough to make a difference I can't tell, but it is one of the reasons I prefer to read non fiction in book rather than ebook form.
    - rypskar 7y ago
      >> like the ability to more easily flick backwards and forwards by several pages The only time I flick forwards is to see how much is left of the chapter, backwards is max one page, kindle have status for how much is left. So guess that depends on how you normally read
      - cbzbc 7y ago
        When reading non-fiction where there are complex arguments that extend over multiple pages it is useful to be able to flick backwards and forwards to follow the argument. Similarly books with long footnotes, where you may want to refer to a previous footnote.
  - healsjnr1 7y ago
    I've read that the tactile aspects of physical books help a lot. This is very anecdotal as I kind find the particular reference I was thinking of. But personally I can recall the specific size, weight, smell and texture of physical books I've read. It adds context and helps distinguish books as independent physical entities which (I believe) helps with recall. On the other hand digital books have begun to blend together for me. Again very anecdotal.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    The obvious difference to me is, that the e-ink screen is not flickering. Every other screen flickers when it gets updated 60+ times a second. They say it is too fast to notice for the eye, but I doubt that. Also a normal screen is an active light source. E-ink is passive. All in all, I can read for hours on a e-ink display, but my eyes hurt soon on a normal screen. But az least they improved a lot compared from the old bulky ones.
- miguel_rdp 7y ago
  I bet it’s more about all the distractions from reading you can have when you use a tablet vs the clean and disconnected experience of an e ink device
- DecayingOrganic 7y ago
  Possible reasons why (by the authors of the study): - due to the length of the stimulus text, difference could be related to issues of navigation within the document - scrolling as it's imposing a spatial instability which may negatively affect the reader’s mental representation of the text and, by implication, comprehension - disrupted mental maps of the text in digital group, which may be reflected in poorer understanding and ultimately poorer recall of presented material - the dual-task involved in switching between two windows displayed on the same computer screen is likely to present additional cognitive challenges to the reader (one displaying the text to be read, the other displaying the questions to be answered) - the common perception of digital screen presentation as an information source intended for shallow messages may reduce the mobilization of cognitive resources - LCD computer screens like the ones used in this study are known to cause visual fatigue due to their emitting light. In contrast, ebook technologies based on electronic ink, such as Kindle and Koboo, are merely reflecting light
- Brave-Steak 7y ago
  Interesting stuff. > the Remember–Know paradigm describes two main types of retrieval response, Remember versus Know. Knowledge which is Remembered is typically recollected in close association with related information pertaining to the learning episode. By contrast, knowledge which is Known is recalled, retrieved and applied without any such additional contextual associations and ‘‘thus, is information which is simply based on a certain sense of just knowing or familiarity [. . .].’’ (Noyes & Garland, 2003, p. 415) One important implication is that the Remember type of memory is thus more vulnerable to fading with time, than knowledge which is Known. By implication, it is assumed that knowledge which is Known is indicative of better learning (Conway, Gardiner, Perfect, Anderson, & Cohen, 1997; Herbert & Burt, 2001). In their experiment, Noyes and Garland (2003) found no differences between the two media (paper versus VDT) in terms of study and reading times, and number of correct answers. On the qualitative comprehension measures, however, there was an effect of presentation medium, with Remember frequencies being almost twice that of Know frequencies in the computer group, while Remember and Know response levels were similar in the Paper group. Noyes and Garland conclude that ‘‘characteristics of the computer screen (refresh rate, high levels of contrast and fluctuating luminance) interfere with cognitive processing for long-term memory’’ (2003, p. 420). These findings were replicated in a later study (Garland & Noyes, 2004), where the medium was either a PDF or a print version. > There are several possible explanations why, in the present study, subjects in the print condition scored significantly higher on the comprehension tests than those in the screen condition. Considering the length of the stimulus text, and the fact that the computer condition text was in PDF format, the difference in comprehension performance between the print and the computer group could be related to issues of navigation within the document. When reading on screen, scrolling is inevitable unless the text is within the screen size. Scrolling is known to hamper the process of reading, by imposing a spatial instability which may negatively affect the reader’s mental representation of the text and, by implication, comprehension (Baccino, 2004; Eklundh, 1992; Piolat, Roussey, & Thunin, 1997). By presenting the texts as PDFs, we intended to minimize the potentially negative effects of scrolling. However, the scrolling option was not excluded from our material. We have no data showing whether or not, and to what extent, the students in the computer condition used the scrolling option when reading the texts. Hence, it cannot be eliminated that students in the computer condition scrolled during reading, and that this scrolling negatively impacted their comprehension performance I'd like to see a study where the computer test uses an iPad with a PDF app that does horizontal paging instead of scrolling (which is generally what I do with my non-fiction ebooks). Honestly, the study is worth reading. There are some other factors they mention that could explain the difference, such as the spatial representation and immediate access to the whole text, physical dimensionality, etc.
steve1977 7y ago
The article is more about being read TO by a caregiver, not so much the babies reading themselves (as far as I've understood). So it might be more related to verbal communication I guess.

perfunctory 7y ago

Apparently yes "...Conclusion: Main findings show that students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally..." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_l...

wildduck 7y ago
Wonder how that hold up against E-Ink reader (almost like paper type of readers).
danielbln 7y ago
"Digitally" seems to mean computer screen in that study. I wonder how smaller screens compare, and different display types (LCD, vs OLED, vs eInk). A kindle should be functionally pretty much like paper.
- ses1984 7y ago
  ... In some ways. Kindle interface is okayish but you still can't flip back and forth as effortlessly as actual paper.
  - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
    I remember reading a study that concluded retention from reading on a Kindle / e-ink device was lower. They concluded that the physical differences of books (size, weight, feel, cover) may help to form memories. I can't say the above is proven fact. Citation definitely needed, but I find it a compelling idea, and would like to learn more. Incidentally efficient language learning also uses somewhat superfluous activities to help create memories and improve retention. Our brains do seem to thrive off stimulation from multiple sources.
    - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
      Wow over 5 years ago! Seems my retention of reading something digitally wasn't too bad ;-) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_l... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb...
  - theshrike79 7y ago
    eInk readers like Kindle only work for linear stuff, the browsing experience just plain sucks. Most digital readers aren't much better, though.
Already__Taken 7y ago
Are there studies about how much you can read? I can see this getting applied to all reading and making students read from textbooks as if it will help. Were reading isn't what's important, rather finding what to read is.
sdan 7y ago
I'm curious as to why. Would e-ink make a difference? What's there to learn differently from screen to paper?
- cbzbc 7y ago
  There are differences - like the ability to more easily flick backwards and forwards by several pages - whether this is enough to make a difference I can't tell, but it is one of the reasons I prefer to read non fiction in book rather than ebook form.
  - rypskar 7y ago
    >> like the ability to more easily flick backwards and forwards by several pages The only time I flick forwards is to see how much is left of the chapter, backwards is max one page, kindle have status for how much is left. So guess that depends on how you normally read
    - cbzbc 7y ago
      When reading non-fiction where there are complex arguments that extend over multiple pages it is useful to be able to flick backwards and forwards to follow the argument. Similarly books with long footnotes, where you may want to refer to a previous footnote.
- healsjnr1 7y ago
  I've read that the tactile aspects of physical books help a lot. This is very anecdotal as I kind find the particular reference I was thinking of. But personally I can recall the specific size, weight, smell and texture of physical books I've read. It adds context and helps distinguish books as independent physical entities which (I believe) helps with recall. On the other hand digital books have begun to blend together for me. Again very anecdotal.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  The obvious difference to me is, that the e-ink screen is not flickering. Every other screen flickers when it gets updated 60+ times a second. They say it is too fast to notice for the eye, but I doubt that. Also a normal screen is an active light source. E-ink is passive. All in all, I can read for hours on a e-ink display, but my eyes hurt soon on a normal screen. But az least they improved a lot compared from the old bulky ones.
miguel_rdp 7y ago
I bet it’s more about all the distractions from reading you can have when you use a tablet vs the clean and disconnected experience of an e ink device
DecayingOrganic 7y ago
Possible reasons why (by the authors of the study): - due to the length of the stimulus text, difference could be related to issues of navigation within the document - scrolling as it's imposing a spatial instability which may negatively affect the reader’s mental representation of the text and, by implication, comprehension - disrupted mental maps of the text in digital group, which may be reflected in poorer understanding and ultimately poorer recall of presented material - the dual-task involved in switching between two windows displayed on the same computer screen is likely to present additional cognitive challenges to the reader (one displaying the text to be read, the other displaying the questions to be answered) - the common perception of digital screen presentation as an information source intended for shallow messages may reduce the mobilization of cognitive resources - LCD computer screens like the ones used in this study are known to cause visual fatigue due to their emitting light. In contrast, ebook technologies based on electronic ink, such as Kindle and Koboo, are merely reflecting light
Brave-Steak 7y ago
Interesting stuff. > the Remember–Know paradigm describes two main types of retrieval response, Remember versus Know. Knowledge which is Remembered is typically recollected in close association with related information pertaining to the learning episode. By contrast, knowledge which is Known is recalled, retrieved and applied without any such additional contextual associations and ‘‘thus, is information which is simply based on a certain sense of just knowing or familiarity [. . .].’’ (Noyes & Garland, 2003, p. 415) One important implication is that the Remember type of memory is thus more vulnerable to fading with time, than knowledge which is Known. By implication, it is assumed that knowledge which is Known is indicative of better learning (Conway, Gardiner, Perfect, Anderson, & Cohen, 1997; Herbert & Burt, 2001). In their experiment, Noyes and Garland (2003) found no differences between the two media (paper versus VDT) in terms of study and reading times, and number of correct answers. On the qualitative comprehension measures, however, there was an effect of presentation medium, with Remember frequencies being almost twice that of Know frequencies in the computer group, while Remember and Know response levels were similar in the Paper group. Noyes and Garland conclude that ‘‘characteristics of the computer screen (refresh rate, high levels of contrast and fluctuating luminance) interfere with cognitive processing for long-term memory’’ (2003, p. 420). These findings were replicated in a later study (Garland & Noyes, 2004), where the medium was either a PDF or a print version. > There are several possible explanations why, in the present study, subjects in the print condition scored significantly higher on the comprehension tests than those in the screen condition. Considering the length of the stimulus text, and the fact that the computer condition text was in PDF format, the difference in comprehension performance between the print and the computer group could be related to issues of navigation within the document. When reading on screen, scrolling is inevitable unless the text is within the screen size. Scrolling is known to hamper the process of reading, by imposing a spatial instability which may negatively affect the reader’s mental representation of the text and, by implication, comprehension (Baccino, 2004; Eklundh, 1992; Piolat, Roussey, & Thunin, 1997). By presenting the texts as PDFs, we intended to minimize the potentially negative effects of scrolling. However, the scrolling option was not excluded from our material. We have no data showing whether or not, and to what extent, the students in the computer condition used the scrolling option when reading the texts. Hence, it cannot be eliminated that students in the computer condition scrolled during reading, and that this scrolling negatively impacted their comprehension performance I'd like to see a study where the computer test uses an iPad with a PDF app that does horizontal paging instead of scrolling (which is generally what I do with my non-fiction ebooks). Honestly, the study is worth reading. There are some other factors they mention that could explain the difference, such as the spatial representation and immediate access to the whole text, physical dimensionality, etc.

steve1977 7y ago

The article is more about being read TO by a caregiver, not so much the babies reading themselves (as far as I've understood). So it might be more related to verbal communication I guess.