[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lbooker

I am tired of trying to help lazy/illiterate/subjective people. I already provided two names. Try and do your own research, we will see if you can spend hours successfully working against your unscientific/misinformed biases.

I'm sure you think you made a point, but you provided two names for research in the 1960's stating that back-lit screens lower brain activity and then claimed that:

it has been repeatedly proven that paper books, especially because pages are in 3 dimensions, take advantage of our spatial memory, thus helping us better remember what we read. The screen that refreshes when turning pages also confuses the brain and diminishes the memorization of the last read lines.

I don't see the connection between the effect that 1960's back-lit screens had on brain activity and a comparison between reading on eink and reading on paper.

As I looked for research showing that back-lit screens lower brain activity, I found this article:

Subjective Impressions Do Not Mirror Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-Eyetracking Evidence from the Reading of Books and Digital Media

Abstract

In the rapidly changing circumstances of our increasingly digital world, reading is also becoming an increasingly digital experience: electronic books (e-books) are now outselling print books in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, many readers still view e-books as less readable than print books. The present study thus used combined EEG and eyetracking measures in order to test whether reading from digital media requires higher cognitive effort than reading conventional books. Young and elderly adults read short texts on three different reading devices: a paper page, an e-reader and a tablet computer and answered comprehension questions about them while their eye movements and EEG were recorded. The results of a debriefing questionnaire replicated previous findings in that participants overwhelmingly chose the paper page over the two electronic devices as their preferred reading medium. Online measures, by contrast, showed shorter mean fixation durations and lower EEG theta band voltage density – known to covary with memory encoding and retrieval – for the older adults when reading from a tablet computer in comparison to the other two devices. Young adults showed comparable fixation durations and theta activity for all three devices. Comprehension accuracy did not differ across the three media for either group. We argue that these results can be explained in terms of the better text discriminability (higher contrast) produced by the backlit display of the tablet computer. Contrast sensitivity decreases with age and degraded contrast conditions lead to longer reading times, thus supporting the conclusion that older readers may benefit particularly from the enhanced contrast of the tablet. Our findings thus indicate that people's subjective evaluation of digital reading media must be dissociated from the cognitive and neural effort expended in online information processing while reading from such devices.

The whole article is available here.