Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Interesting study comparing reading on paper vs tablets

(1/2) > >>

mouser:
Interesting study comparing reading on paper vs tablets:

In most respects, there was no significant difference between the Kindle readers and the paper readers: the emotional measures were roughly the same, and both groups of readers responded almost equally to questions dealing with the setting of the story, the characters and other plot details. But, the Kindle readers scored significantly lower on questions about when events in the story occurred.

--- End quote ---

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/arts/reading-literature-on-screen-a-price-for-convenience.html?_r=0

Found on http://gadgetopia.com/post/9125

IainB:
Yes, interesting.
I found this particularly interesting:
“It’s all one complex web that we need to start disentangling,” she said. The study might still provide fodder for those who insist that reading a novel on a screen just isn’t the same. “It’s a confirmation that these ergonomic dimensions, the tactile feedback of holding paper, might actually matter,” she said.

--- End quote ---
A rather revealing and cringeworthy statement, I thought, reflecting as it does the speaker's apparent lack of knowledge of the relatively large body of research on the subject of ergonomics and visual perception and their effect on the reader's reading comprehension of written material in differently-presented mediums. Never mind, she apparently got a trip from Stavanger to Turin on the strength of it, to present that paper, which was nice.

40hz:
@IainB - Don't jump to conclusions too quickly regarding Ms. Mangen...

The lack of quotation marks around the statement [The study might still provide fodder for those who insist that reading a novel on a screen just isn’t the same.] leads me to believe that sentence may likely have been inserted by the reporter or editor rather than the researcher. Especially since the statements on either side of it do display quotation marks - and do not draw the semi-conclusion the non-quotation does. (Reporters like a conclusion or sound bite. They hate leaving it with a "this opens up several interesting areas for further investigation - but much more data and study is needed before any real conclusions can be drawn" ending.)

That's the problem with so much of what passes for science reporting. You never quite know what's a legitimate summary of something the researcher actually said, and what's an aside, misinterpretation, or editorial gloss by the reporter or the newspaper.

Remember the "God Particle" and all the fun the press and pulpit had with that - despite the fact the researchers never once called it that -  or made half the claims about it the press seemed to think they did?
 :-\

Innuendo:
If article writers are too lazy to run a spell and grammar checker on the article, what hope do we have that they will actually fact check which demands more effort than hitting a button?

IainB:
@40hz: I was indeed referring solely to the composite of the the two statements by Mangen inside the quotes, which happened to have the (probably reporter's) bit stuck inbetween them, as you say, and which latter I did not want to leave out as the remainder might have looked odd cut out like that - losing its context somewhat.

However, I don't know about that middle bit's sentence:
The study might still provide fodder for those who insist that reading a novel on a screen just isn’t the same.
--- End quote ---
It seems rather vapid. I mean, it clearly isn't the same - if only by definition - but so what? And why would anyone want to "insist" they weren't the same - the implication being that no right-thinking person would say they weren't, perhaps? Maybe journalistic bias creeping in around the edges there - if journalist he is.

I'd be interested to know what that "emotional response" test was all about.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page