It looks like it has much more to do with distractions and content type than the quality of the screens or fonts. From that, I assume that reading a good book on a digital screen with notifications off would show very little difference in comprehension. So, as usual with studies, the article title is a little misleading.
I personally prefer kindle over traditional books just because I can read at night with the kindle and the kindle is lighter than books.
I think reading comprehension is the same, although my very weak arms get tired when reading the book while holding it up while I’m in bed and then I have to go to the next page, and sometimes accidentally go 2 pages forward so it does get distracting in that sense.
I know a lot of people really like physical books because of sentimental/ritualistic reasons though and setting up a kindle/nook is a hassle for them
Both an e-reader and physical books are great. Some things are easier with a physical book, others with a digital. With a physical book you have a more “intuitive” feel for where in the book some things happened so it can be easier to find it again if you want to show someone or something like that. Digital books often keep where you are in the book and you can actually search in them to find what you’re looking for. And physical books look great on a shelf in a way that an e-reader doesn’t quite match. But for any travel an e-reader is massively better.
Data involved 469,564 participants from studies published between 2000 and 2022.
So, a significant part of these studies were done before decent screens were even available.
Screens are very very likely irrelevant, they did not control at all for content of the text. It’s so incredibly logical that reading a full book gives better reading comprehension than reading tweets/reddit/tumblr/4chan to the point that this study is just one of the “duh” studies that may be necessary to say “yeah we already knew that but now it’s confirmed”
Or dark mode adoption.
