Report: Readers absorb less on Kindles than on Paper

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Anthem

I mean... do people have this problem with movies? And there is no stack of paper being shifted from one hand to the next when you watch a movie. Sure, there is the passage of time, but you have the exact same thing happening when you are reading an e-book.

An how does that relative thickness on the left and right work out when when the short story is in the middle of a 500 page anthology? (or any other part of the anthology?)

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).

[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.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I'm certainly not absorbing as much ink through my fingers when I read the paper.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And why on earth is it "Kindles" vs paper?

In my experience, it seems like the common person uses "Kindle" as a term for all things ebook. Sort of like how many people say "iPod" instead of "MP3 Player".

Heh, if I am talking to someone and when they ask me what I do, if I say "I make ebooks", they have a blank look. But if I say "I make books so they can be read on a Kindle", they understand what I mean.

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 always wonder... do these people read on this thing called "The Internet"? I read massive articles online all the time, I read technical papers, I read massive threads/discussions, and I have no problems absorbing the information.

I haven't touched a physical book in years, and I would take digital over physical any day of the week, if not for all of the indirect benefits as well (searchability, copy/pastability). EVEN IF I didn't absorb the information as well the first time, I can easily search and find the exact section I am looking for, and read it again.

I wonder if these same sorts of people would create studies when calculators were first getting introduced and becoming more popular. Those dang kids aren't learning Maths the old-fashioned hard way, and they are losing the physicality of SLIDE RULES. Those old timers don't know how to use these newfangled calculators, and they can calculate using a slide rule much faster! And look, my study PROVES IT!

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I'm certainly not absorbing as much ink through my fingers when I read the paper.

[Hampshire Nanny]

Originally Posted by Anthem

Written up for the Guardian:

What do we think?

If I lose track of an important point in a paper book, I have to skim back over *many* pages to find the relevant part and re-read it. With a Kindle, I search for a term and locate it almost immediately. I find this particularly helpful when I want to review just how a character enters the story.

Originally Posted by Anthem

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

On my Kindle (5-button) there is a little progress bar at the bottom that tracks your position both in the book and within the chapter you are currently reading. I look at it frequently.

I mean... do people have this problem with movies? And there is no stack of paper being shifted from one hand to the next when you watch a movie. Sure, there is the passage of time, but you have the exact same thing happening when you are reading an e-book.

I didn't read the study (yet), but I'm also one who likes the progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Not only does it show me my absolute place in the book, but how far I am from a new chapter and how long I've been reading in this session. In a movie theater, I check my watch a couple of times to see how long the show has been going. At home, I have a large clock right next to the TV screen.

Originally Posted by Anthem

A very important part of reading effectively is knowing your self and what works the best for you. I like the progress bar on my Kindle and seeing where I started and how far I got in that session. I do a similar thing when reading paper books where I have this weird tendency to bunch together the pages I read to see how far I got when I finish.

Yeah, that.

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

I haven't touched a physical book in years, and I would take digital over physical any day of the week, if not for all of the indirect benefits as well (searchability, copy/pastability). EVEN IF I didn't absorb the information as well the first time, I can easily search and find the exact section I am looking for, and read it again.

I still read lots of books printed on paper. 2014 is the first year where the number of eBooks has exceeded pBooks -- and I think that's primarily due to the fact that my library now loans digital books. Digital has the benefit of portability and the search and copy/paste functions are definitely nice. Since I don't *read* for content, only for entertainment, I don't really measure "retention" or "absorption". I do reference printed and online documentation in my job, but I don't *read* this from front to back as one reads a book. (No textbooks for me, just technical manuals.)

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by Anthem

On my Kindle (5-button) there is a little progress bar at the bottom that tracks your position both in the book and within the chapter you are currently reading. I look at it frequently.

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.

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Do you have CRS?

Spoiler:

Can't Remember Sh*t

Hey, that's what I've got. I keep forgetting the medical term for it...

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I'm certainly not absorbing as much ink through my fingers when I read the paper.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Do you have CRS?

[Jessica Lares]

This is another one of those studies that have too small of a group to base things off of. I believe that reading is something you have to be in the mood for too, otherwise you won't get anything out of it, and thats whether you're reading it physically, or on an eReader.

I have no trouble remembering stuff that I've read on my Kindles, and my vision is really, really, really weak!

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

In my particular case, this isn't an inherent fault of one technology over another.

I find that when I read too quickly, I am less likely to retain information.

I find that I often choose to read more quickly on an e-reader, and thus potentially retain less. I can read just as quickly with paper and possibly suffer the same loss.

I was thinking in this direction, too, though I would chalk it up less to speed than to the overall plunge forward. I think with paper books (which I've hardly touched in years) I'm a bit more likely to pause and reflect, both due to the somewhat more involved process of turning a page and because there's generally more text in front of me (two full pages rather than 1/2-2/3 of one page). With paper I would pause often, whereas with ebooks it's a bit more of gulping down this bit of text and then the next, and the next, and the next...

Whether it affects my recall, I don't know. I think the text and a bit of what's going on in my life at the time have more to do with it. Some stories vanish the moment they're finished while others linger.

[Froide]

More reputable sources have compared digital reading to reading on paper, e.g.,

Christensen, Arnfinn. (March 13, 2013). "Paper beats computer screens." ScienceNordic.
People comprehend what they're reading on a sheet of paper far better than when they read those same words on a computer screen.
Keywords: Computer, paper, paperless society, reading comprehension, reading skills, tablets, Technology

Dillon, A. (1992). "Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature." Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.

Jabr, Ferris. (Apr 11, 2013).
"The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens." Scientific American.
E-readers and tablets are becoming more popular as such technologies improve, but research suggests that reading on paper still boasts unique advantages.

[DiapDealer]

So far, in all the "research" I've seen, the common claim seems to be that the physical and tactile experience of reading physical books is something that ereading fails to recreate for many people. 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.


And from the third article you linked:

Before 1992 most studies concluded that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper. Studies published since the early 1990s, however, have produced more inconsistent results: a slight majority has confirmed earlier conclusions, but almost as many have found few significant differences in reading speed or comprehension between paper and screens. And recent surveys suggest that although most people still prefer paper—especially when reading intensively—attitudes are changing as tablets and e-reading technology improve and reading digital books for facts and fun becomes more common.

Why the conflation of preference and science in most of these studies/articles that I encounter? "Science is torn, but surveys suggest..."

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

An how does that relative thickness on the left and right work out when when the short story is in the middle of a 500 page anthology?

They may argue that there is an actual transitional "feeling" of progress as you turn the pages: but we get this by clicking the button for page turns or touching the right vs. left side of the screen for page turns, I would think. Some reading apps even animate page turns!

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

In my experience, it seems like the common person uses "Kindle" as a term for all things ebook. Sort of like how many people say "iPod" instead of "MP3 Player".

Just like when people called video games "Nintendo" for the longest time.

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Those dang kids aren't learning Maths the old-fashioned hard way, and they are losing the physicality of SLIDE RULES.

I'm sure we lost something special when we moved away from Scrolls and towards the Codex format as well. "You don't get the profound sense of new words Unrolling before thee!"

Originally Posted by Hampshire Nanny

If I lose track of an important point in a paper book, I have to skim back over *many* pages to find the relevant part and re-read it. With a Kindle, I search for a term and locate it almost immediately.

God, I wish I could remember a term or something that I am looking for. I usually have to do the digital equivalent of flipping back multiple pages. Which is terrible and awful because I can't hold my finger in the place I want to get back to, and placing a bookmark takes far longer than the task I want to accomplish. However, I think the new Kindle iOS app just added Placeholders... and I badly want this on my Kindle/Fire HDX.

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

This is another one of those studies that have too small of a group to base things off of.

Yeah, I'm not sure you can extrapolate out from 50 people and get any sort of useful information whatsoever. I mean... how many people read books on a regular basis in the world? 50 is probably a pathetic sample pool.

[Rps]

Originally Posted by meeera

I think that "The Elizabeth George study included only two experienced Kindle users". Out of fifty subjects.

I am not so sure that the word Kindle in general meant an e reader in general not the specific brand, even though a specific brand was used.

[crich70]

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.

I think that I do as well. Some of it is fan fiction (which is only easily available due to the FFDL plug in for Calibre) and the rest is a mixture of classic books and new fiction that I wouldn't have room for if I had to stick to paper books.

[DuckieTigger]

But she warned against assuming that the "digital natives" of today would perform better.

Of course she would. It is always a safe bet to discourage assumptions of a different outcome with a differently group of test subjects. Makes me wonder if their process to pick the test subjects was flawed to begin with. Usually any respected studies go into great detail to explain how the selection of test subjects is representative for the intended purpose of the study.

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.