Acknowledgments Special thanks to Malinda McCarthy and Elizabeth Bolyard from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their administrative and organizational support of this writing project. Potential conflicts of interest.
In the following scenes she appears to pinch, swipe and prod the pages of paper magazines as though they too were screens. When nothing happens, she pushes against her leg, confirming that her finger works just fine—or so a title card would have us believe.
Perhaps his daughter really did expect the paper magazines to respond the same way an iPad would. Or maybe she had no expectations at all—maybe she just wanted to touch the magazines.
Young children who have never seen a tablet like the iPad or an e-reader like the Kindle will still reach out and run their fingers across the pages of a paper book; they will jab at an illustration they like; heck, they will even taste the corner of a book.
Today's so-called digital natives still interact with a mix of paper magazines and books, as well as tablets, smartphones and e-readers; using one kind of technology does not preclude them from understanding another.
Nevertheless, the video brings into focus an important question: How exactly does the technology we use to read change the way we read?
How reading on screens differs from reading on paper is relevant not just to the youngest among usbut to just about everyone who reads—to anyone who routinely switches between working long hours in front of a computer at the office and leisurely reading paper magazines and books at home; to people who have embraced e-readers for their convenience and portability, but admit that for some reason they still prefer reading on paper; and to those who have already vowed to forgo tree pulp entirely.
As digital texts and technologies become more prevalent, we gain new and more mobile ways of reading—but are we still reading as attentively and thoroughly? How do our brains respond differently to onscreen text than to words on paper?
Should we be worried about dividing our attention between pixels and ink or is the validity of such concerns paper-thin?
Since at least the s researchers in many different fields—including psychology, computer engineering, and library and information science—have investigated such questions in more than one hundred published studies.
The matter is by no means settled. Before most studies concluded that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper. Studies published since the early showever, have produced more inconsistent results: And recent surveys suggest that although most people still prefer paper—especially when reading intensively—attitudes are changing as tablets and e-reading technology improve and reading digital books for facts and fun becomes more common.
Even so, evidence from laboratory experimentspolls 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.
In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension. 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.
A parallel line of research focuses on people's attitudes toward different kinds of media. Whether they realize it or not, many people approach computers and tablets with a state of mind less conducive to learning than the one they bring to paper.
I would like to preserve the absolute best of older forms, but know when to use the new. We often think of reading as a cerebral activity concerned with the abstract—with thoughts and ideas, tone and themes, metaphors and motifs.
As far as our brains are concerned, however, text is a tangible part of the physical world we inhabit. In fact, the brain essentially regards letters as physical objects because it does not really have another way of understanding them.
As Wolf explains in her book Proust and the Squid, we are not born with brain circuits dedicated to reading. After all, we did not invent writing until relatively recently in our evolutionary history, around the fourth millennium B. So the human brain improvises a brand-new circuit for reading by weaving together various regions of neural tissue devoted to other abilities, such as spoken language, motor coordination and vision.
Some of these repurposed brain regions are specialized for object recognition —they are networks of neurons that help us instantly distinguish an apple from an orange, for example, yet classify both as fruit.
Just as we learn that certain features—roundness, a twiggy stem, smooth skin—characterize an apple, we learn to recognize each letter by its particular arrangement of lines, curves and hollow spaces. Some of the earliest forms of writing, such as Sumerian cuneiformbegan as characters shaped like the objects they represented —a person's head, an ear of barley, a fish.
Some researchers see traces of these origins in modern alphabets:Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide a, S x Espla and Received 11 April Accepted 2 August Available online 19 September with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from A Learning Secret: Don’t Take Notes with a Laptop.
Students who used longhand remembered more and had a deeper understanding of the material. Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.
Growth in a Time of Debt Carmen M.
Reinhart, Kenneth S. Rogoff. NBER Working Paper No. Issued in January , Revised in December NBER Program(s):International Finance and Macroeconomics, Monetary Economics We study economic growth and inflation at different levels of government and external debt.
This website presents the Key Reinstallation Attack (KRACK). It breaks the WPA2 protocol by forcing nonce reuse in encryption algorithms used by Wi-Fi.
Introduction. We discovered serious weaknesses in WPA2, a protocol that secures all modern protected Wi-Fi networks. An attacker within range of a victim can exploit these weaknesses using key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs).Concretely, attackers can use this novel attack technique to read information that was previously assumed to be safely encrypted.