Report: Readers absorb less on Kindles than on Paper

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It doesn't strike me as a scientific study. Fifty people isn't a very large sample and I don't understand the rational of breaking them into two groups of 25. Why not have two stories and two series of tests and then have all participants read and test on paper and then all read and test on eink? I would expect that to be a more logical methodology and reproducible for scientific validation.

Because then you know the purpose of the test when reading which totally destroy the experiment. Seems just to be good methodology to do as they did.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Another issue may be that we now have so many crutches to use that we don't need to develop memory as much.

I can definitely vouch for that. A lot of times I remember which keywords to put into google and how the page title looks like to be able to find what I am looking for to refresh by reading again.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I agree. My brain got used to a certain way of reading growing up and in all the years since, and it hasn't adjusted after only a handful of years with an e-reader. I expect that kids nowadays growing up with e-books will be different in how their brains learn to remember.

I very much recall by location on a page, approximate number of pages into the book, etc. I don't get that on a screen; it just all runs together.

Another issue may be that we now have so many crutches to use that we don't need to develop memory as much.

Actually we started that process about 564 yrs ago. Before the invention of Gutenberg's press & his easily reproducible type we had to depend upon our memories to get us through the day (i.e. 30 days hath Sept. etc.) and wandering minstrels would spread news via rhyming songs. Of course there are some benefits to doing it the way we do now too. I don't think I'd want my Dr. to depend upon memory tricks if he had to operate on me.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Another issue may be that we now have so many crutches to use that we don't need to develop memory as much.

By that criterion, keeping information in books is a crutch. Supposedly, Socrates was against keeping written information for that reason. But doing so allows much more information to be preserved and available.

[Catlady]

deleted

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I can definitely vouch for that. A lot of times I remember which keywords to put into google and how the page title looks like to be able to find what I am looking for to refresh by reading again.

What was that website again? "I don't remember but I found it by searching for blueberries, yellow ducks, and New Brunswick."

[Manabi]

Originally Posted by Anthem

I've noticed something similar as well. Sometimes I feel like my Kindle gets too much out of the way. Sometimes it just feels like you are staring at walls of text without context. I do like how print books tend to put the author and chapter title or book title at the top of opposing pages. Have any e-readers attempted to mimic this? I could have sworn that the Kobo software did something like this. Even so, I still do 90% of my reading digitally now.

I'm surprised that the Kindle eInk readers don't at least have the book title on the top of every page, since the Kindle Android apps do. Both their general one, and they one the put on the Kindle Fires. The author now, you'd have to scroll back to the front of the book to find, which can be annoying.

Originally Posted by Anthem

I wonder if a progress bar could effectively replicate the experience of progress that the researchers are talking about.

Pretty much all the e-reader apps I've looked at have a progress bar, although most (maybe all), hide it until you tap on the screen to bring the interface back up. The Kindle app also has both a percent read (bottom right) and either time left in chapter, time left in book, or location (bottom left). I leave it on time left in book usually, and I find it quite helpful. It makes it much easier for me to realize I should give up and go to bed and finish the next day. Turns out I'm really bad at estimating how long it takes me to read what's left in a book.

Originally Posted by Anthem

Well, to be fair, if this study came out saying that e-readers performed dramatically better than paper readers... I find it hard to believe that a few of us here wouldn't feel a bit fuzzy inside. The vitriol and the gloating is the problem.

I'd be suspicious of that too, it doesn't make sense to me in a general. In specific instances, yes, for the population at large? No.

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

I miss that little progress bar more than anything else about my old Kindle. Mind you, I quite like having the 'time left in book..' and percentage of book figure in either corner that I have on my PW. So it's not like there is nothing to indicate how far you are in the book (you don't get to see how close you are to the end of chapter though). I'd guess the fact the study "included only two experienced Kindle users" says more about why there wasn't the same tracking of progress in the ebook compared to the paper version.

If you're using the Kindle Android app, you can tap on the percentage in the corner to change it. It cycles from location, to time left in chapter, to time left in book, to totally off. It has to be displaying first or ready to display (turn a few pages till it does), then try it. I had to figure that one out cause I accidentally turned the whole thing off once.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To which I say: didn't we already know that? Those are the people who still prefer physical books--and aren't going to be deprived of them.

I remember learning that different people have different ways of learning. Some are more tactile, it helps them immensely to both take notes and to rewrite notes. I suspect it's those types of people who prefer physical books, simply because that's the way their brain is wired. Other people's wiring makes e-books either better, or equal, and convenience may win out when all things are equal. So yeah, physical books aren't going away, some people are always going to prefer them, and not just for sentimental reasons. But trying to push one format as better than the other is just silly. People are all different, no one thing is ever going to be better for everyone.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

For example they should have twice the subject pool to make it meaningful. Half of them preference pbook readers, the other half preference ebook readers. Now split each group again in half randomly and give half of them their prefered choice of e or p book, the other half the non-prefered. So you got 25% pbook readers tested with a paper version, 25% pbook readers tested with electronic version, and same for the ebook readers. Those results would be meaningful. If you get the same result statistically in pbook beeing better than ebook in both pbook and ebook groups, than the advantage of paper over electronic would mean something. Or, maybe, the non-prefered book type is worse for remembering than the prefered choice - e.g. ebook lovers will remember better from ebooks and pbook lovers will remember better from pbooks.

There needs to be a control group too. I'd suggest a group composed of non-readers, people who can read, but don't choose to do so unless required to for work/school/etc. How well those people retain info from both physical and e-books would make a nice control group.

Originally Posted by Barty

There was an earlier study that showed that reading with an ugly or difficult font actually aided comprehension, possibly because you have to concentrate more. I think maybe the relative ease of reading linear narrative text broken into smaller chunks to fit on an e-reader screen, with font face and size of your choice, lets you glide over the text and lulls you into thinking you are absorbing more than you are. It's like listening to a skilled speaker can fool you into believing they are making a coherent argument even if they're just spouting gibberish.

Unless forced to, or it was a book I desperately, desperately wanted to read, if I was faced with a font hard to read, physical or e-book either one, I'd just not bother reading it. I suspect most people are the same. I read for enjoyment, having to deal with hard-to-read fonts is too much like work.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Anthem

What do we think?

I think, if they think, the eReader they have pictured there is a "Kindle," that they have comprehension issues.

But seriously, "2 regular Kindle users" out of 50 subjects. And they gave the others 28 whole pages to get used to their Kindles? Sounds like Anne Mangen got the results she wanted to get.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Anthem

Well, to be fair, if this study came out saying that e-readers performed dramatically better than paper readers... I find it hard to believe that a few of us here wouldn't feel a bit fuzzy inside. The vitriol and the gloating is the problem.

I would expect, in a fair study, it wouldn't matter what medium was used. Once you've gotten into the story, you've gotten into that story. Twenty eight pages to get used to an eReader, just isn't going to hack it. I wonder what the results would have been if those studied had read a full-length novel instead.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

What bothers me most is that they suggest publishers add to their gatekeeper roles and start keeping some works out of digital to safeguard (whatever).

Yeah, me too. It almost sounds like this study, and Anne Mangen's earlier one with PDFs on PCs, is being used to support some kind of agenda.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by mr_nihilism

What I know for certain is that since owning a ereader I have been reading far and away more than I ever did before. Much of which is from authors I never would have discovered otherwise. This can only be a good thing.

Screw the study. It was most likely set up to fulfill a agenda anyways.

Agreed. And the same here about reading more since I got my first eReader.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Agreed. And the same here about reading more since I got my first eReader.

I see this comment a lot and I think it is interesting. My reading frequency really hasn't changed. But instead of having paperbacks and hardcover books littered all over my apartment and in my bag... I have a Kindle and tablets laying all over the place or in my bag!

[NickyWithNook]

I have trouble with the small type and thin, sometimes not very dark letters in paper books. I don't absorb much when I read them as a result. I can change the font and type size on my Kindle, and I'm positive I absorb more. I don't see how book text that you have no control over can create a better experience where you retain more than text you can manipulate and make best for your own personal tastes/needs.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by NickyWithNook

I don't see how book text that you have no control over can create a better experience where you retain more than text you can manipulate and make best for your own personal tastes/needs.

Because "paper speaks to our emotions."

Whatever that--and other silly-sounding (and unscientific) soundbites littered throughout these articles--means.

[VeggieCat]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I think, if they think, the eReader they have pictured there is a "Kindle," that they have comprehension issues.

But seriously, "2 regular Kindle users" out of 50 subjects. And they gave the others 28 whole pages to get used to their Kindles? Sounds like Anne Mangen got the results she wanted to get.

Exactly. 28 pages is a drop in the bucket. Transitioning from solely reading pbooks to being totally comfortable with my ereaders was a process that took me years to accomplish.