I know I'm late to the game
but some of the claims the article strikes me as patently absurd.
- It is no more or less difficult to read text on an ebook than on paper. So if ebooks are "bad," then paper books will be as well.
- Other studies have indicated that reading comprehension does not suffer based on ebook vs paper.
- The individual proposing the theory is a blogger, not a neurologist or researcher.
- At this time there's no evidence for his theory, namely that activating the dorsal stream increases reading comprehension and/or improves processing.
- Reading bad handwriting doesn't help you remember. (I certainly don't recall all the chicken-scratch of the prescriptions doctors have written for me.
) The
act of writing something by hand helps reinforce recall and comprehension.
It shouldn't be a surprise that your brain recruits an additional region when reading difficult typography. But "more brain" != "better results."
Of course, he also goes into "larger anxieties" over the "sprawling influence of technology." Perhaps that made good copy in 1995, but by now that concept is a well-worn rut in journalistic writing. I'd go on, but that's more notice than such techno-babble punditry deserves.