Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Research Suggests E-Readers Are "Too Easy" To Read

Posted by samzenpus on from the your-brain-wants-a-challenge dept.

New research suggests that the clear screens and easily read fonts of e-readers makes your brain "lazy." According to Neuroscience blogger Jonah Lehrer, using electronic books like the Kindle and Sony Reader makes you less likely to remember what you have read because the devices are so easy on the eyes. From the article: "Rather than making things clearer, e-readers and computers prevent us from absorbing information because their crisp screens and fonts tell our subconscious that the words they convey are not important, it is claimed. In contrast, handwriting and fonts that are more challenging to read signal to the brain that the content of the message is important and worth remembering, experts say."

8 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. This is... by tool462 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I'm regretting not reading it on my Kindle, so I could forget it quicker.

    1. Re:This is... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no kidding. Since when did "a blogger" get to define what's true?

      Where's the peer reviewed studies?

    2. Re:This is... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's simply based on a level of processing cognitive psychology theory. Things that you have to struggle with a little bit to read or comprehend tend to be more persistent in memory. That's all this research is showing.

    3. Re:This is... by daenris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never struggled with reading the font in a typical physical book, so the claim is still a bit ridiculous. I don't think most people are using ereaders to read electronic versions of things that they would previously have read handwritten. They're reading an electronic version of a book that is in a (most likely) similar complexity font to the printed book, so it isn't making it much (if any) easier to read on the ereader.

  2. E-Readers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What does this have to do with E-readers beside trying to increase article hits? The effect of readability would be just the same for a printed sheet of paper. But I guess that would not be so interesting to read about...

    1. Re:E-Readers? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This all depends on the intent of the readers who were used as test subjects in this study. If they were told "read this text as fast as you can and tell me what it says," the scientists would end up with the results mentioned. If they were told "memorize this text" I'm pretty sure the results would be different.

      After all, when speed reading for instant comprehension, I use a completely different reading technique than I do for memorizing content.

      I think if you tested people from 200 years ago, there wouldn't be as much of a difference -- people tended to only read things that were of importance to them. But today, we are trained from an early age in being able to sift through large amounts of irrelevant text to find the information we're looking for. Better presentation allows us to sift through the irrelevant text faster; we don't want to remember it. We tend to spend the time scanning the text for a recognizable narrative. If we're then told to recall what that irrelevant text was, we won't have much of a clue, beyond the general structure.

      If we make the presentation more difficult, our brain cannot slip into this "scan and sift" mode as often, as we keep missing key words and phrases, having to go back and re-read the content in "comprehension" mode in order to fit it together. So it stands that if we're reading the text in comprehension mode, we'll comprehend more of it.

      If you study reading patterns, you will find that some people learn only one method of reading (not two or more) which significantly impacts their ability to learn in different environments.
      For example, someone who can only do "comprehensive" reading will fail most tests that require skimming large amounts of text in a limited amount of time and responding with the appropriate answers provided. However, give them the same content with unlimited reading time, then wait two weeks to administer the test portion, and you'll find that they are the only ones who pass the test -- and could indeed pass a more difficult test on the same content. Someone who can only do "speed" reading will have the opposite problems. Most of us can do both to some degree; the skill of switching context between the two methods appropriately is a third variable however; people will usually tend towards one method or the other depending on what they're intending to absorb from the presented material. Hence, the Scientist's test has to take this intent into consideration (and I see no indication that it has).

      Conclusion: I don't think these scientists tested exactly what they think they tested; time to go back and fine-tune the test and analyze the conditions within which the test was administered to the subjects.

  3. Paper? by metrometro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who has ever worked in Information Design can tell you that paper, with it's stunning contrast ratios and 1200 dpi printing is a far more precise medium than screens. WTF?

  4. Read better material, don't change font by javakah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There were two main criteria that he used for describing if something is easily forgotten or not: ease of reading visually and complexity of writing.

    It seems as if he's advocating making fonts and such harder to read, so that we are more likely to remember what we read, regardless of whether what we are reading is some trashy novel or a manual that we need to know to save lives. This seems wrong. We should be remembering details from what we read based on the quality and importance of the writing, not the font.