Dan Bloom on being Unplugged and Screening

In the video, Dan Bloom gives his opinion that “screening” is (in his words) “vastly inferior” to reading on paper. He suggests that brain scans be done with subjects reading on paper and then reading on electronic devices. I assume from his tone that he is confident that experts would agree that the mental experience of reading on paper would be shown to touch the brain in a much healthier way.

I am not so sure that there would be much of a difference, nor do I think that such studies would clearly reveal some major flaw in “screening”. Since Dan is just conjecturing, it is quite possible that “screening” might be revealed to be superior in some ways.

Arnie, good response! I like this kind of intelligent feedback. And you are right, this is pure conjecture on my part, based on a hunch based on anecdotal and personal experience, but yes, just a conjecture, and you are very right: it could go the other way. In fact, it could turn out that screening is superior to reading on paper, if not in all ways, at least in some ways, yes!

I am not confident of anything, re all this, Arnie. I am only confident that is good to ask these kinds of questions and let the MRI scans show us the way later on. It could go 50/50 and in fact, that is a strong likelihood. I have no agenda, and I have no dog in this fight. Just curious.

Thanks for weighing on on this. I like your reasoned approach.

A MRI scan expert at a major think tanks tells me:

“Speaking of ‘screening’, when you call for MRI tests to investigate its difference from reading, isn’t that a form of screening, too, privileging an image on an electronic display? The test I would suggest is not telling subjects the real purpose of the experiment, letting some read and comment on a text displayed in a printed book OR on a PC screen OR on a reader (e-ink or TFT), and then let raters also unaware of the real purpose look for differences in what people write after different modes. ”

[ I agree. Let the tests begin! ]

Comment from Dan Bloom which I’m posting for him because of technical problems:

Arnie, good response! I like this kind of intelligent feedback. And
you are right, this is pure conjecture on my part, based on a hunch
based on anecdotal and personal experience, but yes, just a
conjecture, and you are very right: it could go the other way. In
fact, it could turn out that screening is superior to reading on
paper, if not in all ways, at least in some ways, yes!

I am not confident of anything, re all this, Arnie. I am only
confident that is good to ask these kinds of questions and let the MRI
scans show us the way later on. It could go 50/50 and in fact, that is
a strong likelihood. I have no agenda, and I have no dog in this
fight. Just curious.

Thanks for weighing on on this. I like your reasoned approach

An PHD and technology writer, connected with a major think tank in NYC
area, tells me:

“Speaking of screening, Dan, when you call for MRI tests to investigate its
difference from reading, isn’t that a form of screening, too,
privileging an image on an electronic display? The test I would
suggest is not telling subjects the real purpose of the experiment,
letting some read and comment on a text displayed in a printed book OR
on a PC screen OR on a reader (e-ink or TFT), and then let raters also
unaware of the real purpose look for differences in what people write
after different modes.”

And his opinion is based on what, exactly? I’m surprised that he uses email, since typing on a keyboard (and reading the message) must be far inferior to pen and paper.

Hi there, as a physician, I can tell you that “scanning” the brain while reading paper or electronic either through MRI or PET-scans wouldn’t answer any questions about better experience or health of a particular modality. We don’t know enough about the brain to tell you which would be better even if different areas of the brain are active. Most of the stuff we do with this research is really limited in determining formal conclusions.

Wasn’t there an article here a few months ago talking about the use of MRI to demonstrate distraction during reading? I seem to recall Paul or Chris commenting that maybe the brain least “lit up” might demonstrate more concentration on the reading, as opposed to the “lit up” brain of someone reading on an iPad, thinking about the last email they read, wondering when they would next check their favorite blogs, etc.

All I found was this, http://newteleread.com/wordpress/2009/10/15/ny-times-does-the-brain-like-e-books/, from last October, but it’s not the one.

Whatever the answer, in my experience they are the same, and I have direct feedback, not an uncertain proxy.

The difference between paper and static eink is NIL, both appear on non-moving pages, and the resolution difference for most print can be discounted.

Scrolling is a different thing altogether and there he has a point. There are a number of difficulties with moving print and some benefits as well. But ther biggest problem and one that effects comprehension directly is finding the end of the last line when a scrolled page moves forward in jump.

If this is what “screening” is about — he is spot on — with or without MRI scans.

Reading on paper is better than “screening” sentiment reminds me of “LP is better than CD” from yesteryear. It might even be possible that after Gutenberg came up with his little invention there were people claiming that reading handmade transcriptions done by monks was superior to reading printed pages. 🙂

We know that these days watching television is generally much more popular activity than reading. Ereaders and screening, however, are slowly bringing reading back. If that continues, the benefit of screening will be significant.

As I am getting older, my vision is getting worse. I was really alarmed when I found myself struggling with small type-size used in many print books. Screening changed everything for me.

Who knows, maybe we’ll have more trees in parks instead of in books when screening becomes mainstream.

http://green.blorge.com/2010/07/will-mris-help-us-determine-if-paper-reading-is-better-than-electronic-reading

good interview here, July 31

Dan also has a piece about “reading v. screening” here:
http://www.hollywoodstarshoney.com/cultural-commentary/reading-verses-screening.html

Bonus: cute cat picture!