E-readers 'damage sleep and health,' doctors warn

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Do you know anybody who would read a book on an iPad in a dark room with the brightness at full and be comfortable with it?

The study lab wasn't dark. It was light enough that 24 year old experimental subjects could read a paper book.

Right now, I am attempting to proofread this post, at night, in roughly similar light conditions, and I have not dimmed the PC LCD. And I have, on rare occasions, at night, read a book on this screen.

Doesn't mean I am typical, and this factor could lessen the experimental effect. But it isn't likely to make LCD better than eInk.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The target this time just happens to be Apple . . .

One study author is an Apple consultant. If this study is replicated, as seems likely given its careful attention to making sure experimental subjects follow the protocol, Apple will apply the lessons.* Then Apple will sell more devices to now slightly more wide-awake repeat customers.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A competent/honest researcher . . .

This article survived peer review to be published in the second most cited scientific journal in world, the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. Now, every scientific study has strengths and weaknesses. However, unless you have evidence of plagiarism or faked results, this character assassination is out of line.

______________________________
* I'm not sure if changing the peak spectral wavelength for the background to black text, in the iPad or Fire, would require a hardware change, or if they could offer it as a software update. Does anyone know?

[meeera]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The study lab wasn't dark. It was light enough that 24 year old experimental subjects could read a paper book.

The researchers themselves described the lighting as "dim" (and once, "very dim"). Right now I'm in indoor Perth summertime daylight filtered through a blind, and the item I'm reading on my iPad mini is black on a grey background, with the brightness one step off minimum. Full brightness makes no sense unless the participants were outdoors in the daytime, or had fairly severe cataracts (which seems unlikely).

[fjtorres]

Research papers are not holy gospel.
Mistakes and misconduct are common, and so is back scratching. Even then, the embarrasing revelations and belated retractions have been exploding all century:

http://theconversation.com/what-less...r-review-28823
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1110...26a/box/2.html

Prepublication peer review is flawed for three reasons. First, it is restricted to a small number of people, the editors and peer reviewers. To bring the brain power of the entire community of peers into the evaluation process, the paper has first to be made publicly available – that is, published. Second, prepublication peer review is conducted in secret. Since the paper is not yet published, the review process as well is hidden from public scrutiny. Typically, the reviewers are anonymous and their reviews secret. There is thus no strong disincentive to self-serving or subtly biased reviewing. Third, the review process delays publication. When conducted quickly, it may lack thoroughness. When given more time, it slows down the progress of science. The present model suffers from both of these drawbacks.

Establishing the reliability of a finding is only half the challenge. The other half is assessing the implications and importance of a study. Prepublication peer review falls short on both counts.

There really is no need to bow before Zod or any holy researcher. I've reviewed my share of technical and scientific papers in my time and simple reality is crap papers are just that, whether through ineptness or malice.

Publish or perish leads to a boatload of manure this century.

[bminata]

I won't be surprised if according to these publishers.. err.. researchers, the best would be if you stay with paper :P

[murg]

Originally Posted by tompe

Also, people should read the paper before accusing the researcher of bad methodology. Just because you do not like the result it does not mean that the methodology was bad and you can claim that without reading the paper.

Just what part of 'this is the internet' don't you quite understand...

[doxter]

I think that it depends of the light exposure.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

Just what part of 'this is the internet' don't you quite understand...

Well, in his defense, the paper isn't factually wrong.
Just meaningless.
It doesn't say anything that wasn't known beforehand, especially by the researchers and reviewers, nor does it help anybody since it warns people not to do something no rational adult would do. (I suppose an over-eager 6 year old might read his digital storybook at full blast under the covers. But I doubt it. Tablets at full blast in the dark can be nasty.)

At any time, there are literally hundreds of university research proposals just like it at Government agencies, foundations, and corporate R&D offices, trying to squeeze some grant money off a pet concept or established fact by wrapping it in trendy buzzwords or tying it to a current hot subject no matter how much of a reach it might be. Standard practice when evaluating research proposals (been there, tried to escape, still done it) is to have veterans of the process to spot repeaters; the same folks submit the same proposals year after year in different wrapping.

University researchers are a lot like the old pulp writers: they follow the money. And adapt. The pulp writers adapted their plots and characters to whatever venue was buying. If Westerns weren't buying but Police stories were, the taciturn old west Sheriff dealing with outlaws became a Precinct cop dealing with a gang.

It's all about bringing in the grant money.
And if wrapping an old bit of research in made-up terms like LE ereader and tying it to the oh-so-trendy ebook brings in the moolah, so much the better. And if a bit of tailoring can align it to please the patrons, no problem. It might help secure the next grant.

As I said, junk is junk.
Not worth taking seriously.

[XanthanGum]

The topic was also discussed in this Guardian article:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...mment-45439669

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by jbjb

In this case, at least as far as the BBC report is concerned, I'd say the main problem with the reporting is the failure to critically question the research. In terms of the actual claims, the BBC doesn't seem to be overstating it all that much more than the scientists.
/JB

The report extrapolated the results from a scientific study of an extreme configuration of a single model of tablet to apply to not only all immediately pre-sleep reading via that model but all pre-sleep reading with any "light emitting" reading device. That makes the anecdotal, unscientific assumption that that model is representative of all "light emitting" reading devices.

A completely unwarranted conclusion IMHO.

The BBC leapt from that to: "E-books 'damage sleep and health,' doctors warn"

So, it is not only "light emitting" reading devices that are bad for pre-sleep reading, but electronic books themselves. I would call that egregious overstating.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

My guess is somebody at Penguin is ticked off at Apple.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

It's not a bad idea to start with the worst case and work your way down. Better than picking some other arbitrary settings.

Then why didn't they use something like this http://www.amazon.com/Designers-Edge...dp/B0002YW2C8/ to light the paper books? It's only $40.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Then why didn't they use something like this http://www.amazon.com/Designers-Edge...dp/B0002YW2C8/ to light the paper books? It's only $40.

And do you know how expensive 2 500 watt light bulbs are to run? very expensive. Not worth the cost.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Okay, start from the bottom and work up. Which way is more likely to encourage another experiment? One which produces a measurable result, I think.-)

What have they actually measured, since other factors have been brought into play?
(For one, discomfort level.)

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And do you know how expensive 2 500 watt light bulbs are to run? very expensive. Not worth the cost.

Lots of people use electric space heaters. These give you plenty of reading light as well.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Lots of people use electric space heaters. These give you plenty of reading light as well.

And a lot of people who do also burn down the house.