Ask HN: Why is physical reading more effective than digital reading?
Across the literature, reading paper media leads to better comprehension than digital media, both with a typical display and e-paper.
What theories do you have for why this is the case? Is the problem treatable?
22 comments
Citation needed.
I can understand in backlit screens were the light can cause eye strain and that's why I cannot read nor comprehend as much.
But on e-paper? My experience is that I read as well on e-paper as on real paper.
I can understand in backlit screens were the light can cause eye strain and that's why I cannot read nor comprehend as much.
But on e-paper? My experience is that I read as well on e-paper as on real paper.
A quick Google search will find plenty for you. It's been a common idea for a while now I think.
It mostly finds bad "science journalism" and speculation. Use google scholar instead. There the consensus seems to be that this "common idea" is at least in part wrong.
Maybe it's not conclusive but it's not outlandish and there's plenty of supporting information that can be found
Normally, when someone on the internet says "citation needed", they're either lazy, in denial, or a troll. But I can't find anything on this on the internet, and the top result says that ebooks are more effective: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=effectiveness+ebo...
This came up for digital vs print
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220973.2016.11...
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220973.2016.11...
I think it's the intention that counts. When I'm reading on a multi-purpose device like a tablet or smartphone, I can get easily distracted and have an urge to do something else. Some days however I can get lost in a book on it.
The kindle is unique in that you can't do anything but read on it. Same thing with a physical book.
I also believe that the physical traits such as how far you are in a book and the smells / sights can also have plenty to do with it. You don't get that with a digital equivalent.
With all that said, I don't see any difference in comprehension. Some books are simply better on physical and some are simply better on digital.
Using Clayton Christensen's Jobs To Be Done Framework, by giving your devices a job, the more successful you'll be in the outcome you seek. For example I give my iPad Mini a job to be done of being my e-reader at night. And it works wonderfully as I don't swipe through random apps if it's already my intention to read.
The kindle is unique in that you can't do anything but read on it. Same thing with a physical book.
I also believe that the physical traits such as how far you are in a book and the smells / sights can also have plenty to do with it. You don't get that with a digital equivalent.
With all that said, I don't see any difference in comprehension. Some books are simply better on physical and some are simply better on digital.
Using Clayton Christensen's Jobs To Be Done Framework, by giving your devices a job, the more successful you'll be in the outcome you seek. For example I give my iPad Mini a job to be done of being my e-reader at night. And it works wonderfully as I don't swipe through random apps if it's already my intention to read.
E-paper is a pretty similar experience in my opinion and personally I've read more books on my e-reader than I have through physical media. Love the little thing, I have a jailbroken Kindle Voyage with Koreader and it's the best e-reader experience I've had in years.
But to stay on topic, if I were to give you a wild guess, I think it might have to do with the sort of feedback you get form reading physically compared to digital. The mere act of turning a page might trigger positive feedback loops in your brain that you don't really get with the sort of instant-page turning from e-readers.
It might also have to do with people just not being used to the medium, I got my mom an e-reader and for a while it worked for her but eventually she went back to physical books, she's just much more used to them.
But to stay on topic, if I were to give you a wild guess, I think it might have to do with the sort of feedback you get form reading physically compared to digital. The mere act of turning a page might trigger positive feedback loops in your brain that you don't really get with the sort of instant-page turning from e-readers.
It might also have to do with people just not being used to the medium, I got my mom an e-reader and for a while it worked for her but eventually she went back to physical books, she's just much more used to them.
This. Reading a book is a physical act. Every word exists in a unique position in 3D space. When you read a book, you automatically create a bespoke (but imperfect) memory palace for it that corresponds to the physical artifact in your hands. It is much easier to scan for information in a physical book because you retain a sense of where it is. By contrast, an eReader is just an endlessly refreshing pane of glass with no additional context.
I find it particularly hard to read long texts or books at a typical computer used for programming (rather big horizontal screen). Not sure why. Even reading on my mobile phone while travelling feels sometimes easier.
Not really. I like the smooth vertical endless scrolling that computers, especially smartphones provides. I read a lot more on the default Books app on my iPhone than any physical books.
The literature proposes sone theories, e.g.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6384527/
says comprehension is about the same, but that a physical book makes it easier to remember if something happened earlier or later in the book.
On a completely unscientific annecdote that seems to match my experience, where with paper I subconciously remember positions in the book, while on a kobo every page feels the same. That said, full text search is sorely missed on dead tree.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6384527/
says comprehension is about the same, but that a physical book makes it easier to remember if something happened earlier or later in the book.
On a completely unscientific annecdote that seems to match my experience, where with paper I subconciously remember positions in the book, while on a kobo every page feels the same. That said, full text search is sorely missed on dead tree.
My hunch is that it has nothing to do with the screen. It's the device that's the problem, reading on a device that you can theoretically do anything from watch porn to build a business to doom scrolling facebook. When I'm on a computer my brain knows I could check some attention stealing thing so I get the idea in my head, interrupting my attention.
When I switch to a kindle or a physical book I can feel those impulses to divert my attention for the first minute, but they dissipate quickly when my brain realizes I'm not on a computer. Then my brain stops trying to interrupt itself, hunting for some dopamine shot.
When I switch to a kindle or a physical book I can feel those impulses to divert my attention for the first minute, but they dissipate quickly when my brain realizes I'm not on a computer. Then my brain stops trying to interrupt itself, hunting for some dopamine shot.
Is that true for Kindle-like e-paper devices?
I like screen reading a lot better these days. Paper books take way more effort. I've read quite a lot of fiction on screen, as well as technical stuff. I tend to prefer plain text format to "nice" formatting, e.g. I will often use pandoc to convert epubs into text, then read the text with view-mode in Emacs.
I think it is mostly to do with problem of plenty. It easy to get distracted and lose focus on digital vs. being stuck with a book and reading enough to start enjoying it.
Even for exercise, a 30mins gym workout is often much better than an hr with digital platforms.
Even for exercise, a 30mins gym workout is often much better than an hr with digital platforms.
Anything to back this up or is it just some randoms claims without proofs?
the studies said something about remembering where exactly something happened (e.g. it's easier to remember if you have pages instead of infinite scroll). Also, books are not as distracting as screens (I'd call it "light noise"). These are some hard problems to fix, also the devices (e.g. smartphone) are used for too much things so that your mind is used to being interrupted, even if you're not, so much so that your mind has trouble concentrating when using the device.
I don't have links handy, but this topic came a few times on HN. Also, although this is usually not part of the topic, making notes with a pen is also better for your brain than typing (leads to better retention). So, to sum up: We are wired for pen and paper and using this knowledge is an advantage. The paperless office can wait.
In a recent episode of Huberman Lab Podcast, it was said that it was about space.
That is, smaller screens are bad for cognition. But bigger ones are supposed to be better.
I like paper more with no other thing taken into consideration. But a Kindle is really nice for reading thick novels and non-fictions.
For reading technical books, research papers, books with lots of graphs, figures, etc. I have a 10" android tablet.
I am very satisfied with those.
I still buy physical books regularly.
Jumping to 50 pages back intuitively with your hand feels something different from jumping to a page in a PDF.
While reading a physical book, your peripheral vision also comes into play. Although you read a particular line, your eye "sees" the graph on the other page.
When you navigate to places inside a book, you are also quickly reminded old things with a flash of the materials.
Holding a particular book, sitting and opening it is also an elaborate associative ritual. With ebooks, you are just holding the same piece of silicon brick for all of them.
The speed at which you can turn over to previous page compared to scrolling up is also something to be considered.
These are just some things that I think can explain the gap if there is one.
Everybody notes distraction. But that can be learned to avoid through self-control. I have done that.
Besides self-control, a Kindle has abundance in choice, but its distractions are nothing compared to a much more common smartphone.
My first reading-purpose tablet was a Lenovo 512 MB RAM tablet. Couldn't do anything with it besides running a few ebook reader apps.
And as I said, the choice abundance problem can be solved with self-control.
And I do not trust the conclusion drawn by the papers. Were they done with people who all grew up reading traditional books? If so, the "grouping" would be futile. All people grew up reading paper books. Now you give screens to some of them. Of course these people will have trouble reaching the same level of comfort as compared to the others.
These studies have a general reproduction problem as well.
If we draw n=20,000 1 yos, and give only paper to 10,000 of them, and only screens to the other 10,000, and monitor them for 20 years, will we notive cognitive difference? I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
Aside from the technicalities I mentioned, I don't think paper is something special. Because paper is modern enough to not matter from an evolutionary standpoint.
Because of my insatiable hunger of books and money constraints, I have been reading digitally for a long time. I read 300-700 pagers regularly on a 4.5" smartphone when I was little.
As an adult, I have very little troubles with screens now.
A Kindle is an English novel reading nirvana, and a 10" tablet is a research paper reading nirvana. The experience can't be better for me.
I read on bed, I read on commute, even toilet. Books are impractical in many situations. And you can pack only so many of them.
I also suggest reading on a big tablet rather than a smartphone or an immobile monitor. You will notice the difference.
That is, smaller screens are bad for cognition. But bigger ones are supposed to be better.
I like paper more with no other thing taken into consideration. But a Kindle is really nice for reading thick novels and non-fictions.
For reading technical books, research papers, books with lots of graphs, figures, etc. I have a 10" android tablet.
I am very satisfied with those.
I still buy physical books regularly.
Jumping to 50 pages back intuitively with your hand feels something different from jumping to a page in a PDF.
While reading a physical book, your peripheral vision also comes into play. Although you read a particular line, your eye "sees" the graph on the other page.
When you navigate to places inside a book, you are also quickly reminded old things with a flash of the materials.
Holding a particular book, sitting and opening it is also an elaborate associative ritual. With ebooks, you are just holding the same piece of silicon brick for all of them.
The speed at which you can turn over to previous page compared to scrolling up is also something to be considered.
These are just some things that I think can explain the gap if there is one.
Everybody notes distraction. But that can be learned to avoid through self-control. I have done that.
Besides self-control, a Kindle has abundance in choice, but its distractions are nothing compared to a much more common smartphone.
My first reading-purpose tablet was a Lenovo 512 MB RAM tablet. Couldn't do anything with it besides running a few ebook reader apps.
And as I said, the choice abundance problem can be solved with self-control.
And I do not trust the conclusion drawn by the papers. Were they done with people who all grew up reading traditional books? If so, the "grouping" would be futile. All people grew up reading paper books. Now you give screens to some of them. Of course these people will have trouble reaching the same level of comfort as compared to the others.
These studies have a general reproduction problem as well.
If we draw n=20,000 1 yos, and give only paper to 10,000 of them, and only screens to the other 10,000, and monitor them for 20 years, will we notive cognitive difference? I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
Aside from the technicalities I mentioned, I don't think paper is something special. Because paper is modern enough to not matter from an evolutionary standpoint.
Because of my insatiable hunger of books and money constraints, I have been reading digitally for a long time. I read 300-700 pagers regularly on a 4.5" smartphone when I was little.
As an adult, I have very little troubles with screens now.
A Kindle is an English novel reading nirvana, and a 10" tablet is a research paper reading nirvana. The experience can't be better for me.
I read on bed, I read on commute, even toilet. Books are impractical in many situations. And you can pack only so many of them.
I also suggest reading on a big tablet rather than a smartphone or an immobile monitor. You will notice the difference.
This is just a study in distraction. It is like asking why is it common courtesy to not make a ton of noise at a library. We figured this out already a long time ago.
I even find with a digital device a distraction aspect to having 100 books I want to read at my fingertips. It is the paradox of choice. This book I have open is good but maybe one of the others would be even better.
Of course, I doubt there would be any difference if the digital device only had one book on it at a time and could not do anything but read but that would largely defeat the purpose of a digital device.
I even find with a digital device a distraction aspect to having 100 books I want to read at my fingertips. It is the paradox of choice. This book I have open is good but maybe one of the others would be even better.
Of course, I doubt there would be any difference if the digital device only had one book on it at a time and could not do anything but read but that would largely defeat the purpose of a digital device.
I don't really find it much different, but it might be because I've trained myself to read from a screen for long periods of time to do "real work".