This link has been bookmarked by 230 people and liked by 1 people. It was first bookmarked on 15 Oct 2009, by Marion Walton.
-
02 Oct 15
-
30 Jun 14
-
03 May 12
-
01 May 12
BE ESAHArtigo de opinião no The New York Times a propósito das consequências da utilização dos ebooks, nomeadamente a nível das alterações cerebrais.
-
17 Apr 12
-
24 Mar 12
-
people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent. Fifteen or 20 years ago, electronic reading also impaired comprehension compared to paper, but those differences have faded in recent studies.
-
Reading on screen requires slightly more effort and thus is more tiring,
-
-
29 Feb 12
-
27 Feb 12
-
26 Feb 12
-
28 Oct 11
-
16 Oct 11
-
Is there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium?
-
To a great extent, the computer’s usefulness for serious reading depends on the user’s strength of character.
-
-
08 Oct 11
-
24 Feb 11
-
05 Feb 11
-
19 Jan 11
-
23 Nov 10
-
20 Oct 10
-
30 Sep 10
Elliot Lazerwitzרב שיח של מומחים על השאלה, האם ספרים דיגיטאליים
נגישים לקריאה ולמוח? -
21 Jul 10
-
Still, people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent.
-
The recent failure of the Kindle pilot program at Princeton
-
-
09 Jun 10
Morena RossHow the reading experience differs between paper and screen.
-
12 May 10
jamesdanielclarkElectronic readers can be held in a comfortable position, but their contrast is closer to that of a newspaper than to black-on-white print, and illustrations tend to have poor resolution
-
04 Apr 10
-
Still, people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent
-
electronic reading also impaired comprehension compared to paper, but those differences have faded in recent studies
-
Reading on screen requires slightly more effort and thus is more tiring, but the differences are small and probably matter only for difficult tasks
-
Paper retains substantial advantages, though, for types of reading that require flipping back and forth between pages, such as articles with end notes or figures.
-
To a great extent, the computer’s usefulness for serious reading depends on the user’s strength of character. Distractions abound on most people’s computer screens
-
The reading speed reported in academic studies does not include delays induced by clicking away from the text to see the new email that just arrived or check out what’s new on your favorite blog.
-
In one study, workers switched tasks about every three minutes and took over 23 minutes on average to return to a task. Frequent task switching costs time and interferes with the concentration needed to think deeply about what you read.
-
-
26 Mar 10
-
14 Mar 10
-
06 Mar 10
-
24 Feb 10
-
15 Feb 10
-
12 Feb 10
-
04 Feb 10
-
11 Jan 10
-
04 Jan 10
-
02 Jan 10
Siim LepiskIs there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium?
-
18 Dec 09
-
03 Dec 09
-
20 Nov 09
-
18 Nov 09
-
17 Nov 09
-
12 Nov 09
-
people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent
-
-
11 Nov 09
-
Still, people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent
-
It takes time and adaptation before a balance can be restored, not just in the “mentality” of the reader, as historians of the book like to say, but in the social systems that complete the reading environment.
-
For me the formation of the “good reader” follows a similar course. I have no doubt that the digital immersion of our children will provide a rich life of entertainment and information and knowledge. My concern is that they will not learn, with their passive immersion, the joy and the effort of the third life, of thinking one’s own thoughts and going beyond what is given. Let us bring our best thought and research to preserving what is most precious about the present reading brain as we add the new capacities of its next iteration.
-
-
07 Nov 09
-
03 Nov 09
-
02 Nov 09
-
01 Nov 09
amy21novIs there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs
information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does
the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension,
depending on the medium? -
31 Oct 09
-
30 Oct 09
-
29 Oct 09
-
27 Oct 09
-
26 Oct 09
-
25 Oct 09
-
23 Oct 09
-
John Turner"Does the Brain Like E-Books?"
Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium?
* Alan Liu, English professor
* Sandra Aamodt, author, “Welcome to Your Brain”
* Maryanne Wolf, professor of child development
* David Gelernter, computer scientist
* Gloria Mark, professor of informatics -
22 Oct 09
-
21 Oct 09
-
20 Oct 09
-
19 Oct 09
Sue Medu521
-
any new information medium seems to degrade reading because it disturbs the balance between focal and peripheral attention
-
It takes time and adaptation before a balance can be restored, not just in the “mentality” of the reader, as historians of the book like to say, but in the social systems that complete the reading environment.
-
We swing between two kinds of bad reading.
-
tunnel vision
-
marginal distraction
-
containing structures.”
-
metaphors
-
they want to be online “books,” “editions,” “encyclopedias,” “bookshelves,” “libraries,” “archives,” “repositories” or (a newer metaphor) “portals
-
Such structures are supposed to make intuitive the relation between individual documents and other documents
-
Web 2.0 offers a different kind of metaphor: not a containing structure but a social experience. Reading environments should not be books or libraries. They should be like the historical coffeehouses, taverns and pubs where one shifts flexibly between focused and collective reading —
-
The future of peripheral attention is social networking, and the trick is to harness such attention — some call it distraction — well.
-
-
18 Oct 09
-
-
For example, they want to be online “books,” “editions,” “encyclopedias,” “bookshelves,” “libraries,” “archives,” “repositories” or (a newer metaphor) “portals.” Such structures are supposed to make intuitive the relation between individual documents and other documents. But, frankly, many of those structures didn’t work too well even in the golden age of print.
(Show me one person who has made a serendipitous discovery while wandering the library stacks, and I will show you a thousand whose eyes glazed over at the sheer anomie, inefficiency, and meaninglessness of it all.) They especially don’t work well now when stretched to describe online technologies that actually behave nothing like a book, edition, library and so on.
My group thinks that Web 2.0 offers a different kind of metaphor: not a containing structure but a social experience. Reading environments should not be books or libraries. They should be like the historical coffeehouses, taverns and pubs where one shifts flexibly between focused and collective reading — much like opening a newspaper and debating it in a more socially networked version of the current New York Times Room for Debate.
The future of peripheral attention is social networking, and the trick is to harness such attention — some call it distraction — well.
-
Electronic reading has become progressively easier as computer screens have improved and readers have grown accustomed to using them. Still, people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent. Fifteen or 20 years ago, electronic reading also impaired comprehension compared to paper, but those differences have faded in recent studies.
-
Paper retains substantial advantages, though, for types of reading that require flipping back and forth between pages, such as articles with end notes or figures.
-
To a great extent, the computer’s usefulness for serious reading depends on the user’s strength of character. Distractions abound on most people’s computer screens. The reading speed reported in academic studies does not include delays induced by clicking away from the text to see the new email that just arrived or check out what’s new on your favorite blog. In one study, workers switched tasks about every three minutes and took over 23 minutes on average to return to a task. Frequent task switching costs time and interferes with the concentration needed to think deeply about what you read.
-
The screen technology, electronic ink, avoids some disadvantages of monitors, such as backlighting and flicker, but it remains awkward to scan through multiple pages.
-
Each young reader has to fashion an entirely new “reading circuit” afresh every time. There is no one neat circuit just waiting to unfold. This means that the circuit can become more or less developed depending on the particulars of the learner: e.g., instruction, culture, motivation, educational opportunity.
Equally interesting, this tabula rasa circuit is shaped by the particular requirements of the writing system: for example, Chinese reading circuits require more visual memory than alphabets. This “open architecture” of the reading circuit makes the young reader’s developing circuit malleable to what the medium (e.g., digital online reading, book, etc) emphasizes.
-
In brief, this brain learns to access and integrate within 300 milliseconds a vast array of visual, semantic, sound (or phonological), and conceptual processes, which allows us to decode and begin to comprehend a word. At that point, for most of us our circuit is automatic enough to allocate an additional precious 100 to 200 milliseconds to an even more sophisticated set of comprehension processes that allow us to connect the decoded words to inference, analogical reasoning, critical analysis, contextual knowledge, and finally, the apex of reading: our own thoughts that go beyond the text.
This is what Proust called the heart of reading — when we go beyond the author’s wisdom and enter the beginning of our own.
-
The tools (as usual) are neutral. It’s up to us to insist that onscreen reading enhance, not replace, traditional book reading. It’s up to us to remember that the medium is not the message; that the meaning and music of the words is what matters, not the glitzy vehicle they arrive in.
-
When PC’s first entered the home in the 1980s, a number of studies comparing the effects of reading on an electronic display versus paper showed that reading was slower on a screen. However, displays have vastly improved since then, and now with high resolution monitors reading speed is no different than reading from paper
-
They switch simple activities an average of every three minutes (e.g. reading email or IM) and switch projects about every 10 and a half minutes. It’s just not possible to engage in deep thought about a topic when we’re switching so rapidly
-
-
17 Oct 09
burkhartpm"() () (new york times reading ebooks kindle google psychology neuroscience technology society)"
-
RIRE CTREQ"Is there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs
information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does
the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension,
depending on the medium?"cerveau neuroscience lecture conseiller_pédagogique parent primaire opinion livre_numérique bibliothèque tic
-
Carol FurchnerSeveral views on the utility and desirability of e-books; what impact will spending much time reading online have on development of reading skills in children?
-
My group thinks that Web 2.0 offers a different kind of metaphor: not a containing structure but a social experience.
-
-
16 Oct 09
-
-
Is there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium?
-
A New Metaphor for Reading
-
Alan Liu is chairman and professor of English at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
-
Initially, any new information medium seems to degrade reading because it disturbs the balance between focal and peripheral attention.
-
We suffer tunnel vision, as when reading a single page, paragraph, or even “keyword in context” without an organized sense of the whole. Or we suffer marginal distraction, as when feeds or blogrolls in the margin (”sidebar”) of a blog let the whole blogosphere in.
-
My research group on online reading (the University of California Transliteracies Project) has come to realize that we need a whole new guiding metaphor.
-
Reading environments should not be books or libraries. They should be like the historical coffeehouses, taverns and pubs where one shifts flexibly between focused and collective reading
-
A Test of Character
-
Sandra Aamodt is a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience.
-
people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent.
-
Paper retains substantial advantages, though, for types of reading that require flipping back and forth between pages, such as articles with end notes or figures.
-
Frequent task switching costs time and interferes with the concentration needed to think deeply about what you read.
-
remains awkward to scan through multiple pages.
-
their contrast is closer to that of a newspaper than to black-on-white print, and illustrations tend to have poor resolution.
-
Beyond Decoding Words
-
Maryanne Wolf is the John DiBiaggio Professor in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts,
-
After many years of research on how the human brain learns to read, I came to an unsettlingly simple conclusion: We humans were never born to read.
-
Each young reader has to fashion an entirely new “reading circuit” afresh every time.
-
circuit can become more or less developed depending on the particulars of the learner: e.g., instruction, culture, motivation, educational opportunity.
-
tabula rasa circuit is shaped by the particular requirements of the writing system
-
-
Claire"Is there a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium?"
-
beth gourley5 authors present their opinion on whether the brain likes ebooks by suggesting whether it depends on discipline towards distractions, how the reading practice is shaped, the focus is on the words or whether ereading opens up a more social experience. But ultimately is one able to experience "deep reading."
-
- David Gelernter, computer scientist
-
Gloria Mark, professor of informatics
-
come to realize that we need a whole new guiding metaphor. So many of today’s commercial, academic and open-source reading environments are governed by metaphors of what I call “containing structures.”
-
My group thinks that Web 2.0 offers a different kind of metaphor: not a containing structure but a social experience. Reading environments should not be books or libraries. They should be like the historical coffeehouses, taverns and pubs where one shifts flexibly between focused and collective reading — much like opening a newspaper and debating it in a more socially networked version of the current New York Times Room for Debate.
-
and the trick is to harness such attention — some call it distraction — well.
-
Still, people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent. Fifteen or 20 years ago, electronic reading also impaired comprehension compared to paper, but those differences have faded in recent studies.
-
the computer’s usefulness for serious reading depends on the user’s strength of character.
-
It’s up to us to insist that onscreen reading enhance, not replace, traditional book reading. It’s up to us to remember that the medium is not the message; that the meaning and music of the words is what matters, not the glitzy vehicle they arrive in.
-
Public Stiky Notes
Page Comments
A question I've been asking around. I know younger generations who don't like reading on paper - they digitalize everything.
I generally prefer reading on paper. I feel I get a better understanding. But I like having digital for annotating and searching after.
PS: This website does not support being translated! cause of auto-redirection... bad accessibility by NYTimes!
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.