Interesting study comparing reading on paper vs tablets

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[IainB]

@40hz: Your comment about "Remember the "God Particle"...":
I didn't see what all the fuss was about. Creationists would probably assert that we are all made up of "God particles" anyway. This was my view, FWIW:

Yes, I found this about the theoretical Higgs boson in Wikipedia:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Its existence is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in the Standard Model. Experiments attempting to find the particle are currently being performed using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, and were performed at Fermilab's Tevatron until Tevatron's closure in late 2011. Recently the BBC reported that the boson will possibly be considered as "discoverable" in December 2011, although more experimental data is still needed to make that final claim.

The Higgs boson is the only elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not been observed in particle physics experiments. It is an integral part of the Higgs mechanism, the part of the SM which explains how most of the known elementary particles obtain their mass. For example, the Higgs mechanism would explain why the W and Z bosons, which mediate weak interactions, are massive whereas the related photon, which mediates electromagnetism, is massless. The Higgs boson is expected to be in a class of particles known as scalar bosons. (Bosons are particles with integer spin, and scalar bosons have spin 0.)

Theories that do not need the Higgs boson are described as Higgsless models. Some theories suggest that any mechanism capable of generating the masses of the elementary particles must be visible at energies below 1.4 TeV;[4] therefore, the LHC is expected to be able to provide experimental evidence of the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson.

Interestingly, there are apparently two groups of scientists:
(a) Higgs: those scientists who are believers in the SM (Standard Model) predictions and who apparently:

... expect the LHC experiment to be able to provide definitive experimental evidence of the existence of the Higgs boson.

and

(b) Higgsless: those scientists who are non-believers in the SM - and who thus hold instead that the HM (Hiiggsless Model) is the Truth and who apparently:

expect the LHC experiment to be able to provide experimental evidence of the non-existence of the Higgs boson.

Scientists! They're a funny lot aren't they?   

I don't know how many of either group might be climate scientists.

[zxcvbn]

I have only just seen this topic, so I come late to the discussion - the story of my life 

I bought a Kindle 2 or 3 years ago, downloaded several books I had never read, and got going.  All I can say about that is/was that if you want to read a book, and there is no other way to do it, then the Kindle is OK.

But, I do like to handle a book, I like to know who printed it and where and when it was printed, and above all I like to be able to flip back and forth to remind myself of who somebody is (an absolute necessity in Dickens, for example) and I never found any easy way to do this on a Kindle.

I live in the UK, so I use Abebooks (I hope this doesn't constitute advertising ! - I won't link to the URL just in case) and I can get a good quality paperback for about 60p - the postage and packing is the most expensive part of the deal.  This I find much more rewarding and enjoyable.

However, lest you should think I am a total dinosaur, I DO read "The Guardian" every day, and it is often interesting to compare the Kindle version of the newspaper to the online version.  Sometimes what has appeared on the Kindle is unfindable on their web site.

And if you are a book lover, may I respectfully suggest you take a look at, and perchance subscribe to "Slightly Foxed" which you will quickly find in a web search.  It has introduced me, a literary ignoramus, to books and authors I would never otherwise have known about.

[TaoPhoenix]

Back to paper vs tablets:
I'll read certain stuff like "papers" as PDFs as they show up in web links, but if I really want to dig hard into a book I feel is of major importance to me, paper is the way to go. Kindles sound seductive for "yay, I have 5,000 books on my kindle", but of course you're not going to read 5,000 books. It's about the selection on a whim. If I identify a book I feel is really important to me, paper it is. I picked up from somewhere a double system of underlining. If a whole paragraph looks useful, I draw a slightly curved line down the whole left hand side of it. (If the whole page is incredible, just fold down the page corner!). Then later if some three sentences are the key, underline them. Write notes in the margins.

Use a large nibbed blue ball point pen for "Bold" to underline certain section titles. Then stick bookmarks in various sections so you can flip back and forth at high speed comparing the "five fundamental points".

(Borrowing the marine motto) "There are 4999 other books on my Kindle, but this one is mine."

On another angle, if you're doing elusive instinct level research, I haven't seen an analogue for 7 tomes all spread out over a desk at once.

[crabby3]

... too soon for a relyable study or survey.  wait a couple hundred years - if we're still here