While that may be a true factor, it's still undoubted that the tactile feedback is much more vibrant, and engrossing than digital.
Physical books are cognitively superior in that they allow a reader to firmly establish the progress of narrative through physical feedback. The very act of turning a page, and accumulating each page as physical entities allows a user to see the accumulative progress of a story continuously. In that you can physically see the beginning, and the end, the only obstacle is familiarizing one's self with the contents of the book.
Digital reading however is totally abstract. Chronology, and pagination, beginning, and ending, don't really exist, but are completely an abstract object established by some magical forming of pixels. Every time you "turn a page" there's nothing actually happening, save for the movement of pixels, there's no visual, or physical feedback, no interactive feedback, at least not as in depth of a feedback as physical books provide. And as encoding only enhances with increased sensory input, I would say that digital does comparatively have a decreased sensory input, and therefore decreased ability to encode.
So perhaps the missing link is the vast array of cognitive feedback that one receives when physically turning pages, that is sacrificed in digital reading.
Another possibility is that a reader is more distracted when reading digital books, due to the multiplicity of tasks one can actively partake using computers. Since there are many tasks, a reader could actively seek out, or remember other tasks that are more enticing, or urgent. In comparison there's only one thing you can do with a book. That does not take into to account the physical surrounding of a reader, as that also may have a profound effect. This is only conjecture.
I think you raise good points, but what if we look at it from a perspective where paper books are not the norm:
> it's still undoubted that the tactile feedback is much more vibrant, and engrossing than digital.
If we look for book-like feedback in digital, we'll be disappointed. However, consider that many digital works, such as web pages, games, etc. provide much more feedback than books, and digital feedback can be fine-tuned for the story being told much more than paper books' interface.
> Physical books are cognitively superior in that they allow a reader to firmly establish the progress of narrative through physical feedback. ... Digital reading however is totally abstract
Again if books are the norm, then of course they meet that standard better than digital. Perhaps a more abstract experience is better, or better in some cases and worse in others. Maybe authors unconsciously have written for books and will write differently for digital. If digital had come first and was the norm, I think we would say that books have too much feedback, and they distract from the elements in the text that tell the story.
See, this is where I think you have over thought it. I think it is just as likely that people read their ebooks in more places and more "on the run" than they do physical books. In large part because you can.
Now, I fully agree with the "more distracted" portion. Especially if we are considering such reading devices as iPads or phones. Reading from my paperwhite, though, I would be surprised if this is much different than reading a paperback. Other than that I am now reading more than I used to. (Seriously, I got how many books from the humble bundle?)
Also... just because I "don't buy it" doesn't mean I'm right. :) More research will show more data that should help actually answer these questions. I'm just saying I don't expect more research to necessarily confirm this one.
Yup! Not saying you were right or wrong, just throwing ideas into the fray, and seeing what other people think of it. Aren't discussions amazing? :) Anecdotal consensus while not always accurate is often a cheaper, and quicker method of determining the accuracy of certain ideas.
I can agree with people being on the run more often due to the portability of digital devices, but still don't see why you disagree with physical books simply having a greater array of sensory input.
I disagreed with the first point you made, so I think I just had the knee jerk reaction to the whole post.
My disagreement is in most of the sensory input being irrelevant. I can see the appeal at one level, but I also know I find reading from paper bound books borderline annoying if they don't have lay flat bindings. Most of my sensory input is how to get the previous page out of the way without damaging it. A distraction to what I'm reading.
Physical books are cognitively superior in that they allow a reader to firmly establish the progress of narrative through physical feedback. The very act of turning a page, and accumulating each page as physical entities allows a user to see the accumulative progress of a story continuously. In that you can physically see the beginning, and the end, the only obstacle is familiarizing one's self with the contents of the book.
Digital reading however is totally abstract. Chronology, and pagination, beginning, and ending, don't really exist, but are completely an abstract object established by some magical forming of pixels. Every time you "turn a page" there's nothing actually happening, save for the movement of pixels, there's no visual, or physical feedback, no interactive feedback, at least not as in depth of a feedback as physical books provide. And as encoding only enhances with increased sensory input, I would say that digital does comparatively have a decreased sensory input, and therefore decreased ability to encode.
So perhaps the missing link is the vast array of cognitive feedback that one receives when physically turning pages, that is sacrificed in digital reading.
Another possibility is that a reader is more distracted when reading digital books, due to the multiplicity of tasks one can actively partake using computers. Since there are many tasks, a reader could actively seek out, or remember other tasks that are more enticing, or urgent. In comparison there's only one thing you can do with a book. That does not take into to account the physical surrounding of a reader, as that also may have a profound effect. This is only conjecture.