Which eReader is this story referring to?

[twowheels]

Saw this link on Google News:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/H...w/45624497.cms

The story says LEeBook, which I assumed was something from India based on the site, but the study seems to have been done in the US, but I've never heard of that reader. The picture with the article looks interesting. It makes me wonder which "other eReaders" they used and if that included front-lit eink devices.

[twowheels]

Oh, I get it! LE-eBook -- Light Emitting eBook. Not a particular brand of reader. I'm still unclear on whether they were including front-lit eInk readers in with light emitting readers or not.

I personally can't read in bed for more than a few minutes on my KPW before falling asleep, but if I start reading on my phone I'll easily be up for 20 minutes or more.

[Shades]

It's referring to the study which was posted here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=253338

It's not scientific and they used iPads at full brightness at a fixed range away from the users face. It was funded by big publishers too.

[twowheels]

Behind a paywall, but I found the original paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/12/18/1418490112

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Shades

It's referring to the study which was posted here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=253338

It's not scientific and they used iPads at full brightness at a fixed range away from the users face. It was funded by big publishers too.

Thanks... I'll read that thread.

[robko]

Originally Posted by Shades

It's not scientific and they used iPads at full brightness at a fixed range away from the users face. It was funded by big publishers too.

Where is it saying it was funded by big publishers? In the conflict of interest section it says he received royalties from some publishers. That quite possibly means he has published a book through them. Maybe I'm missed where they talked about the funding of the study, but I've only seen the the fact that he received royalties mentioned in other threads.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by robko

Where is it saying it was funded by big publishers? In the conflict of interest section it says he received royalties from some publishers. That quite possibly means he has published a book through them. Maybe I'm missed where they talked about the funding of the study, but I've only seen the the fact that he received royalties mentioned in other threads.

Conflict of interest statement: Dr. Czeisler has received consulting fees from or served as a paid member of scientific advisory boards for: Boston Celtics; Boston Red Sox; Citgo Inc.; Cleveland Browns; Merck; Novartis; Purdue Pharma LP; Quest Diagnostics, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.; Valero Inc.; Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Czeisler currently owns an equity interest in Lifetrac, Inc.; Somnus Therapeutics, Inc.; Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and between October 2012 and October 2013, Apple, Inc. and Microsoft, Inc. Dr. Czeisler received royalties from McGraw Hill, Penguin Press/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Philips Respironics, Inc. and has received grants and research support from Cephalon Inc., National Football League Charities, Philips Respironics, ResMed Foundation, San Francisco Bar Pilots and Sysco. Dr. Czeisler is the incumbent of an endowed professorship provided to Harvard University by Cephalon, Inc. and holds a number of process patents in the field of sleep/circadian rhythms (e.g., photic resetting of the human circadian pacemaker). Since 1985, Dr. Czeisler has also served as an expert witness on various legal cases related to sleep and/or circadian rhythms, including matters involving Bombardier, Inc.; Delta Airlines; FedEx; Greyhound; Michael Jackson's mother and children; Purdue Pharma, L.P.; United Parcel Service and the United States of America.

Dr. Czeisler sure has a lot of publishers to his name up there. He received funding from them and I doubt it was to write a book, or not only to write a book. Pretty blatant conflict of interest.

Besides this, the extremely low amount of people participating in this so called study is laughable and invalidates any findings really. You need a lot more than a dozen, give or take participants for an actual study.

[robko]

Originally Posted by Shades

Dr. Czeisler sure has a lot of publishers to his name up there. He received funding from them and I doubt it was to write a book, or not only to write a book. Pretty blatant conflict of interest.

Besides this, the extremely low amount of people participating in this so called study is laughable and invalidates any findings really. You need a lot more than a dozen, give or take participants for an actual study.

I'm not disagreeing that this is really flimsy data to make the conclusions based on, but near as I can see he has 2 publishers in that list ("Penguin Press/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt" and "McGraw Hill"). If he specifically got funding from the publishers for this article, then that definitely is a conflict. I'm just saying that what this says is he got ROYALTIES (which makes me think book sales) not FUNDING which in my mind are 2 totally different things. So throw this research under the bus for the small sample size and possibly questionable methodology, not the funding thing.