Slashdot Mirror
Research Suggests E-Readers Are "Too Easy" To Read
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."
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.
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?
The study had 28 participants... and they were asked to remember species of aliens...
While this may be a sign that it's worth looking into the differences a font makes in learning, I'll wait until a bigger study comes out where participants were asked to read a more likely and involved subject matter like the history of the Ottoman Empire.
I have a feeling many participants will be less likely to read past the first chapter if it was written in Comic Sans.
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.