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

[jbjb]

But it's implausible to me that, with a less bright setting at the same wavelength, and a larger sample, the results wouldn't go in the same direction.

You're assuming that any effects are due to the wavelength of the light. Unfortunately, the vastly different light intensities means that that inference cannot be drawn from this experiment. It could just as well be the light intensity that is the determining factor.

It is, of course, clearly possible that the wavelength does have a significant influence, but to claim that it's implausible for it to be anything else (e.g. light intensity, physical arrangement) is inferring too much from a rather poorly designed experiment.

/JB

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by jbjb

The experimenters imposed different physical arrangements on the two groups, in that the iPads were held in a stand in a fixed position, at a fixed distance from the subject, and the subjects were not allowed to hold them, or adjust the position.

Your criticism could easily be spun the other way.

Perhaps that made the iPad users more tired and sleep better.

Another criticism which could be offered is that most tablet readers hold their device closer than the specified 30 - 45 cm. This concerns could, if desired, be used to accuse the researchers of going easy on Apple. If it was me, I would have held it closer.

However, to accuse the researchers of being pro-Apple (even though the senior author acknowledged being an Apple consultant) would be mistaken as well. There were a bunch of decisions that needed to be made, and cherry-picking one that seem pro-Apple, or pro-LCD, or anti-Apple, or anti-LCD, misses the point.

A follow-up study giving the experimental subjects more leeway, at least in bedtime, is planned.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Your criticism could easily be spun the other way.

Perhaps that made the iPad users more tired and sleep better.

Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't. That's the whole point - by adding spurious differences between the two cases they are just muddying the waters and invalidating the experiment.

It's fundamental experimental discipline - if you're looking too see if there is an effect caused by X, you try your hardest to make sure X is the only difference between the groups.

However, to accuse the researchers of being pro-Apple (even though the senior author acknowledged being an Apple consultant) would be mistaken as well.

I have never made such an accusation.

/JB

[QuantumIguana]

The gold standard of testing is the double-blind test. Of course, that's not possible here, because whether you are reading from paper or a screen is obvious. Still, as many differences as possible should be eliminated. One that stands out was "Participants were allowed to turn pages on the LE-eBook, but were asked not to hold it while reading or make any adjustments to the settings. During the printed book reading sessions, participants were allowed to hold the book at any desired distance from their eyes." This difference could have easily been eliminated by not allowing either group to hold the book or device.

You can have a real-world test or a more narrowly focused test, but you cannot draw a broad conclusion like "Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness" from a very narrow test. It would be like testing automobile safety only at very high speeds and drawing broad conclusions about automobile safety. The brightness issue is not easily glossed over. If the frequency of the light is a problem, less light should have more of an effect, and conversely, more light should have more of an effect. In dim light, people lower the brightness of their devices. On the Kindle Fire, I can switch to white letters on a black screen, and thus use considerably less light. I find it quite uncomfortable to have the brightness at full in dim light. It may be true that other devices are brighter, but if people don't use their devices at full brightness in dim light, it is irrelevant that there are devices that could be even brighter. If they tested at lower levels of brightness and let people read the devices as they wished, if the effect persisted, their conclusion would be much stronger. As it is, it isn't worth all that much. A more reasonable conclusion might have been "Evening use of light-emitting eReaders at high levels of brightness negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness"

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by meeera

Whether or not most people make a point of reducing brightness in dim light, the iPad does it by default. You have to go out of your way to disable auto-dim in order to get this experiment's conditions.

Android, at least the "vanilla versions" on the Nexus devices, have auto-dim enabled by default, as well. Unless deliberately disabled in the settings, Android tablet users also read e-books with reduced brightness.

Anyway, it seems that my e-ink readers never last, probably because I treat them too much like books (unlike the tablet). Or maybe it's just how non-Kindles are (I have no experience with Kindles). So now I'm back to reading on the Nexus 7, which at least has good software that doesn't annoy the stuff out of me. FBReader and MoonReader are set to have much less brightness than I run my tablet usually at (I don't use auto-dimming), and it's decent enough for reading in-doors. I think I can handle having my sleep slightly damaged -- and I'm pretty sure that cup of tea in the evening is far more problematic!

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Mivo

and I'm pretty sure that cup of tea in the evening is far more problematic!

Depends how short you define evening.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...upting-effects

They found that caffeine consumed even 6 hours before bedtime resulted in significantly diminished sleep quality and sleep quantity.

[Barty]

I don't see this as a conspiracy mainly because the dead tree publishers just don't have that much money to throw around :-)

Now, drug studies -- those are really questionable. Most of them are funded by drug companies, because they're the one with money and vested interest. The studies with negative or neutral results are usually quietly shelved. Borderline results are massaged to make them look better than they are. Drug efficacy is often compared to that of a placebo rather than another drug. The people conducting the studies have financial conflict of interest galore. The FDA and other regulatory agencies are inadequately funded and get grief for not approving drugs fast enough and for letting unsafe drugs through.

You think your doctor prescribes you something after carefully reading research papers and meta analyses? More likely, they're hearing anecdotes from other doctors, getting sale pitches from reps who gladly take them out to dinner or a ball game (even lowly residents will get pitches from reps), or being nagged by their patients because they saw an ad on TV. (Ask your doctor if Zombitra right for you.) A good chunk of the drug market exists mainly to solve one problem: expiring drug patents. It's kind of amazing that with so much monkey business going on we have drugs that actually work.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Barty

I don't see this as a conspiracy mainly because the dead tree publishers just don't have that much money to throw around :-)

I don't see it as a deliberate conspiracy, but it often seems there is bias, with broader conclusions than are warranted or really digging to find something negative to say about e-books.

Now, drug studies -- those are really questionable. Most of them are funded by drug companies, because they're the one with money and vested interest. The studies with negative or neutral results are usually quietly shelved. Borderline results are massaged to make them look better than they are. Drug efficacy is often compared to that of a placebo rather than another drug. The people conducting the studies have financial conflict of interest galore. The FDA and other regulatory agencies are inadequately funded and get grief for not approving drugs fast enough and for letting unsafe drugs through.

You think your doctor prescribes you something after carefully reading research papers and meta analyses? More likely, they're hearing anecdotes from other doctors, getting sale pitches from reps who gladly take them out to dinner or a ball game (even lowly residents will get pitches from reps), or being nagged by their patients because they saw an ad on TV. (Ask your doctor if Zombitra right for you.) A good chunk of the drug market exists mainly to solve one problem: expiring drug patents. It's kind of amazing that with so much monkey business going on we have drugs that actually work.

There may be conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, but unlike the alt-med concoctions, at least they are tested.