Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
That's reasonable. I suppose it matters to Audible.  What case do you think they're making here? Audiobibliophiles get blasted by the "text only" crowd as being lazy and less legitimate; perhaps Audible is trying to strike back by saying, "Well, at least we're better than tv! So neener, neener, neener." |
The article says:
Quote:
|
According to Devlin, “though participants surveyed assumed they were less engaged, the biometric sensors indicate otherwise. ... It seems as though the heart really does tell the story.”
|
So a person thinks the video version is more engaging, but science says objectively it's not. How is this meaningful to me? I'm generally all for objectivity, but consuming media for pleasure is subjective, and if I say I think I'm more engaged by video, who is some researcher to say I'm not?
Anyway, the study apparently used isolated scenes for comparisons--that does a disservice to both the book and the video. And a more legitimate comparison would be to see the differences between reading on one's own and being read to. Movies are so vastly different that a comparison seems meaningless.
If science wants to examine which medium is usually better for learning or retention of material, fine, have it at, although even there I'm sure there are widely different learning styles.
The study seems silly.