Are e-readers hurting our reading comprehension?

An article in Scientific American suggests that, initially, reading on screens may diminish our capacity to understand what we read. But that could be changing.

Brian Snyder/Reuters
Researchers have been studying reading comprehension on screens as opposed to paper since at least the 1980s.

Do e-readers hamper reading comprehension?

As e-readers and tablets become increasingly popular, that question is the crux of a new article by Scientific American that examines the brain’s response to reading on paper versus reading electronically. When we move from one medium to another, for example, do we retain the same level of information? Do we absorb the message as completely? Do we enjoy the same quality of concentration in reading?

Though research – and indeed, our own adaptation to electronic reading – is ongoing and changing, the SA article suggests reading on electronic devices can inhibit reading comprehension by hindering readers’ ability to fully absorb and process content. But that may be changing.

“[E]vidence from laboratory experiments, polls and consumer reports indicates that modern screens and e-readers fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss and, more importantly, prevent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way,” writes Ferris Jabr for the Scientific American. “In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension.”

One reason for this is that screens are visually taxing to look at, causing eye fatigue, especially after reading for long periods of time.

“Compared with paper, screens may also drain more of our mental resources while we are reading and make it a little harder to remember what we read when we are done,” Jabr writes.

But here’s the interesting part: We may actually be adapting to reading on screens.

You see, researchers have been studying reading comprehension on screens as opposed to paper since at least the 1980s. According to the SA, “Before 1992, most studies concluded that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper."

Curiously, however, studies published since then have shown a slow change, namely in that more recent studies have found few significant differences between comprehension of screens versus paper.

“Attitudes are changing as tablets and e-reading technology improve and reading digital books for facts and fun becomes more common,” reports the article, positing that future generations may “grow up without the subtle bias against screens that seems to lurk in the minds of older generations.”

That, to us, is the most fascinating facet of this latest study.

Are e-readers changing the way we read, even changing the way our brains absorb information? Are our brains, unbeknownst to us, in the midst of a literary-cerebral evolution, adapting to new digital formats, e-ink, and screen reading?

While the majority of readers still report a preference for paper books, something tells us the next generation may embrace e-reading as wholeheartedly as our forefathers did the printing press.

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.