Word, as it were

For some time now, neuroscientists worldwide have been peering into brains to see how reading from books compares with screen reading, even if you are reading an e-book or e-paper. Researchers’ conclusions are emphatic – reading better, and retaining more, are best done via the physical ‘device’: book, newspaper, periodical. Not their electronic cousins. Nor audiobooks. Word, as it were.

A Spanish university study analysed 25 studies (2000-2022), with 4.5L participants, to conclude that 10 hours of paper reading results in comprehension, six to eight times greater, than the same read on digital devices, for the same hours. So, what are the differences? E-readers don’t engage the brain as much for attention, or retention. Paper reading leads to focus, while the mind wanders when reading from screens, or listening to audiobooks (multi-tasking is common). Reading on phones makes the brain work harder to process text. It’s a double load – the brain must track progress and make meaning. Paper readers recall structure/sequence better. Then, there’s pace. Reading a physical book, or newspaper, you can pause, process at your own pace. With audiobooks, you can’t speed up, or skip, or slow down, or re-read. The studies found digital natives struggle to make meaning out of their reading – screen readers even overestimated their understanding, found an Israeli study.

Think, what can be more high-tech than a paper book or newspaper? After all, they’re handheld, mobile & wireless, invented centuries ago. And no charging required. It’s simple. For meaning, pick up that paper reading material. Running out of shelves? Then, perhaps, it’s better to read less, than read wrongly. That’s the science – and you read it in this paper. 

END OF ARTICLE