Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All iPads Writing with Apple Pencil and iPad - shouldn’t this have memory retention levels similar to pen and paper?
- Thread starter Farrgazer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
@sracer, thank you again for sharing your insights with honesty.
After reading your thoughts, I looked for the Kindle Scribe price, and I found it was a bit more than I expected (at least here in Europe).
I honestly think that my reading experience has decreased significantly over the years, which I think is connected to some difficulties on focusing myself. I'm in a PhD, so the pressure to read and absorb information is always high, but sometimes I feel I'm not reaching my full potential.
May be the platform is not the best: I think the tablet distracts a bit, I'm using Zotero to have my PDFs all the way with me, but I never get more than 20 minutes full focused. Should I think in a Kindle to help me out?
When I feel I have this kind of performance decrease, I often go to other place and "close" myself until the job is done. I just think I should get this naturally... I needed to share these feelings, I think this reading experience theme is very important to me, my work and my surrounding well-being.
I used an iPad Pro 10.5 for a year at university, writing notes and reading content on it. I slowly transitioned away from that towards paper again. I did a lot of digging into this topic during that time. Overall, there really doesn't seem to be much specific research into information retention and writing on a tablet, and the only paper I could find is the one in your post.
I agree with the findings though and don't think that software can fix the problem. It seems that spatial information is important for knowledge retrieval and the medium itself. This idea is discussed in the paper you linked and in various other papers that investigated (the adjacent topic of) whether reading comprehension and memory retrieval differ if information is read on paper or screens:
- Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension - ScienceDirect: 'Main findings show that students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally.'
- Children's reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper - ScienceDirect: 'These results suggest that children, like adults, are metacognitively unaware of the detrimental effect that on-screen reading has on their comprehension, and they are likely to make ineffective medium choices for their reading tasks.'
- The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization - ScienceDirect: 'In conclusion, overall results show that if we fulfil all the conditions of paper-based versus computerized presentation (text structure, presentation on a single page, screen size, several types of questions measuring comprehension and memory performances), reading performances are not significantly different.'
- Paper vs. Screen: Effects on Reading Comprehension, Metacognition, and Reader Behavior - Dar-Wei Chen, Richard Catrambone, 2015 (sagepub.com): 'Participants who read text on paper tended to take more notes and spend more time studying than those who read from a screen, but comprehension differences were negligible. Results from this study can inform dialogue about the effects of technology in classrooms.'
- Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure - ScienceDirect: '► Text learning under time pressure was less effective on screen than on paper. ► Learning was similarly effective on both media when free regulation was allowed. ► Knowing the time constraints in advance improved learning efficiency on paper only. ► The extent of paper preference was associated with this adaptation to time pressure. ► Technological factors are probably not the cause for the found screen inferiority.'
- Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity | Journal of the Association for Consumer Research: Vol 2, No 2 (uchicago.edu): 'Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.'
And, look, I still read 90% of my university material on a screen. It's far too convenient not to so that. Printing every abstract that wanted to read would have taken too much time and paper. I use an ereader too. But that doesn't mean we should be blind to the fact that it might lower our comprehension and performance. It's a trade off for the convenience.
I have been reading about psychology recently and learned about how we can often substitute hard questions for easier ones. In this case, it would be 'is memory retrieval affected if notes are taken on an iPad' with 'do I like using my iPad to take notes?' Of course, if you like taking notes on your iPad, you will be inclined to believe that there is no difference. I'm not accusing you of this; I just think this automatic substitution of one question for another is fascinating and like talking about it! Something for us all to think about lol.
Last edited:
Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity | Journal of the Association for Consumer Research: Vol 2, No 2 (uchicago.edu)
This one couldn't replicate the negative effect: Beyond the smartphone's mere presence effect: A quantitative mobile eye tracking study on the visual and internal distraction potential of smartphones - ScienceDirect
This one found some effects: Does a smartphone on the desk drain our brain? No evidence of cognitive costs due to smartphone presence in a short-term and prospective memory task - ScienceDirect
Lowered performance: The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance | Scientific Reports (nature.com)
Interestingly, this one hypothesised that removing smartphones would increase anxiety and decrease performance. They did not find that to be the case: Are Smart Phones Inhibiting Smartness? Smart Phone Presence, Mobile Phone Anxiety, and Cognitive Performance | The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology (charlotte.edu)
I found one useful way to avoid cognitive interference from my phone - I turn it off. Maybe because I'm old I find it easy to totally disconnect from external connectivity - the way it used to be when your connection was only an available landline. I really enjoyed climbing expeditions where we didn't take a radio to call for help - totally isolation can be enervating.
Oh yeah I know what you mean. When I did gold DofE, it felt so liberating not to have my phone (turned on). It was just me, the map, and the open tick infested road.
Unfortunately though, that was pretty much the only time I have done that. I'm in my early twenties and have my phone on all the time. People in my house text me instead of shouting lol. I have an Apple Watch too, and I'm not sure if the notification function is a benefit. I often feel FOMO when I don't wear it.
I recently did some work experience in an open plan office. My word, it was so distracting. Everyone had their phone on and were expected to answer it. So there were conversations and ringtones flying through the air all the time. People even had them on in meetings lol. So much noise. I don't know how possible it is to only focus on one thing at work anymore. There's even a name for it: continuous partial attention.
The lost art of concentration: being distracted in a digital world | Health & wellbeing | The Guardian: 'By adopting an always-on, anywhere, anytime, any place behaviour, we exist in a constant state of alertness that scans the world but never really gives our full attention to anything. In the short term, we adapt well to these demands, but in the long term the stress hormones adrenaline and cortisol create a physiological hyper-alert state that is always scanning for stimuli, provoking a sense of addiction temporarily assuaged by checking in.'
There's evidence that media multitasking is bad for us too (e.g. watching tv and browsing MacRumors lol).
Media Multitasking and Cognitive, Psychological, Neural, and Learning Differences | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics (aap.org): 'The present review surveys the growing body of evidence demonstrating that heavy MMTs show differences in cognition (eg, poorer memory), psychosocial behavior (eg, increased impulsivity), and neural structure (eg, reduced volume in anterior cingulate cortex). Furthermore, research indicates that multitasking with media during learning (in class or at home) can negatively affect academic outcomes. Until the direction of causality is understood (whether media multitasking causes such behavioral and neural differences or whether individuals with such differences tend to multitask with media more often), the data suggest that engagement with concurrent media streams should be thoughtfully considered.'
I digressed a bit from your point, but I find this stuff fascinating and very relevant to my own life.
Yeah, it's an addiction. My last two long trips out, we were isolated for 5 weeks on both. It becomes a lot easier to focus your attention.
Thank you. I've kept this page open as I intended to come back to post some links, but you've done that for me, cheers.
I use my cellular watch as a freedom device. All notifications disabled except calls and texts (people only call or text me on my personal number if it's important). It's amazing to get the security of knowing you'll be able to get and make emergency calls/texts, without any of the notifications or sources of distraction of modern technology.
I make a point to leave the phone at home for at least one thing, one day a week. When you can also use the watch for tap and pay, as an ID card for security access to work offices, and as a public transport card, and navigation, you really can get away with leaving your phone at home sometimes.
Oh yeah, if you want to do good work, the distracted and hyperactive nature of the modern workplace, and its impact on attention, is one of the main things you have to contend with. And because most people are so deep into it, they have no idea the impact it has on their work.
But if you are clever about it, and you continually make improvements and stay conscious about it, you can find ways to work deeply and leave your peers in the dust.
Last edited:
I think the bolded part of the statement above provides revelation regarding your question. That part suggests that it isn't only where the note is taken on the paper or screen that helps with encoding of information, but also because of the relativity between actual note to another note.
Let me try a simpler way...
They are saying that memory encoding is helped by "notes relative to each page of the real paper", and they are also saying that it is also the written notes relative to other pages that helped to encode information.
When you are writing digitally, after you get to the bottom of your screen as your scribble, you're going to go back to the same screen's upper left (or right, depending on your language) position to write again. So it's like a tabula rasa where you over and over again write over your own things in physical space. With actual paper, you would go to another page, so the actual note is in another actual page in a different physical relation to your new notes being written.
I hope this clunky description helps
Basically, think about not only the notes in relation to the paper. Think about the relation between paper. There is a physical relationship between one paper to the next. But there is no physical relation between one digital paper to the next digital paper -- it's all the same screen.
If anything:
- there is clear evidence that engagement with smart devices can have an acute impact on ongoing cognitive tasks.
- the evidence on any long-term impacts of smartphone-related habits on attentional functioning is quite thin, and somewhat equivocal.
- Generally, the evidence does point to a negative relationship between smartphone usage and attention, but correlational and self-report data dominate the literature.
- Where more controlled assessment of attentional performance has been deployed, such as with media multitasking, the results are mixed, with some studies even yielding a positive relationship with the ability to filter distractions.
- Limitations of current metholology used to measure media-related behavior and wide variation in the specific tasks used to assess attentional performance may account for some mixed results in the literature.
Last edited by a moderator:
This article and the studies referenced within are what I was referring to.
www.abc.net.au
Best of 2023: How do we cultivate deep reading in a digital age? - ABC Religion & Ethics
Skimming is the new norm for reading in a digital world — but the difference between skimming and reading with all our intelligence is the difference between fully activated reading brains and their short-circuited, screen-dulled versions.
www.abc.net.au
Last edited by a moderator:
I use my ipads a heap for note taking.
Whether or not i remember so much isn't so important to me, however i do have notes available (from the notes app prior to apple pencil) since 2011. Network diagrams, checklists for change management, KB articles for problems I've hit, etc.
The pencil is great for making diagrams that i never lose.
I lose paper. I don't lose iCloud.
Whether or not i remember so much isn't so important to me, however i do have notes available (from the notes app prior to apple pencil) since 2011. Network diagrams, checklists for change management, KB articles for problems I've hit, etc.
The pencil is great for making diagrams that i never lose.
I lose paper. I don't lose iCloud.
What's the problem? My post contains links that support what teh_hunter said. Ok, maybe it would have been nice for teh_hunter to have provided some in the post to which you referred, but the study you have just posted doesn't exactly contradict what anyone has said in this thread.
In fact, I'm actually confused about the point you are trying to make. I don't think anything in the article you linked disputes anything I linked in my post: the post to which teh_hunter referred you. In fact, what does this post have to do with the original question? We're not really concerned with whether smartphones and media multitasking affect cognition; we are concerned with whether writing notes on an iPad affects comprehension and recall.
Therefore, I linked a few papers that were concerned with reading comprehension since so few studies on the effects of writing mediums have been completed. They were the closest to what we are discussing.
But I can see how this study is relevant to my point about smartphones being distracting and lowering task performance, which is exactly what the study you linked concludes.
'While there is clear evidence that engagement with smart devices can have an acute impact on ongoing cognitive tasks, the evidence on any long-term impacts of smartphone-related habits on attentional functioning is quite thin, and somewhat equivocal.'
So they found that smartphones can impact performance but there is no long term damage to attentional functioning. What's you're point? No one has claimed that there is long term damage. But performance can be affected when completing a task. Isn't that the most important part anyway?
Since the iPad is essentially a giant phone, don't you think this finding is relevant? I am implying that the smartphone functions of the iPad could negatively impact task performance, which we would expect to negatively impact note taking on the same device because it is a distraction. But, there is no study that I know of that has researched this exact thing. That is why I surmised that from studies about smartphones.
If you apply the findings of the literature review in your post to the iPad, don't you think using the same device to take notes might negatively affect your comprehension and recall?
Also you have just quoted the summary section of the article (without telling anyone that) and some of the points are slightly misleading due to the context. When they say, 'Where more controlled assessment of attentional performance has been deployed, such as with media multitasking, the results are mixed, with some studies even yielding a positive relationship with the ability to filter distractions.' I'm pretty sure they're referring to the foregoing studies that found 'positive associations between gaming and skills like selective attention, sustained attention, task-switching, and visual short-term memory'. That was found in action video games only.
No one is saying these studies are perfect and no one is attacking you personally. I still use my laptop, phone, and iPad for everything. But it is worth knowing the effects that such devices can have on your life.
I've read ebooks for the last ... 2017-Current. Wow 6 years. I read my first paper book last week for the first time in (I think?) 6 years. I can tell you where certain events happen in the paper book - and give a pretty accurate idea of where in the book it is. But, do I remember more about this book than ebooks I've read? I don't really feel that. I can see how location would help but it doesn't prevent me from remembering information I get out of ebooks.
I don't understand the hostility. We're all talking a very interesting topic (to me at least). Love the references provided. Everyone is different. My wife is 100% paper books. Ironically, she read an ebook recently on her iPad and MacBook (first one that I can recall) and really enjoyed it lol. Her comments were - the ability to read it wherever was a huge plus but she prefers paper.
She also prefers paper note taking - she will have her PhD in a few months. I prefer paper notes just because I can fit a lot more information on an 8/11.5 page than I can an iPad 11 Pro's screen and I can write a lot smaller easier.
Again, I've concluded that consistency and finding out what works for you is far more rewarding than focusing on digital/paper. In the end, you putting effort towards something should produce results better than no effort. lol.
I don't understand the hostility. We're all talking a very interesting topic (to me at least). Love the references provided. Everyone is different. My wife is 100% paper books. Ironically, she read an ebook recently on her iPad and MacBook (first one that I can recall) and really enjoyed it lol. Her comments were - the ability to read it wherever was a huge plus but she prefers paper.
She also prefers paper note taking - she will have her PhD in a few months. I prefer paper notes just because I can fit a lot more information on an 8/11.5 page than I can an iPad 11 Pro's screen and I can write a lot smaller easier.
Again, I've concluded that consistency and finding out what works for you is far more rewarding than focusing on digital/paper. In the end, you putting effort towards something should produce results better than no effort. lol.
I wrote »here is a review with a bibliography of 130 referenced articles, which summarizes the above points.« - the points I listed are summarized in the referenced review.
I tried to point out that a statement like:
is not as conclusive as it is presented in this thread. There is an additionally body of results which suggest otherwise, I referenced some.
But not giving any reference or replying basically with “google it” is a poor form of commenting whatever. I think it is fair to point that out.
Look, I am aware that the article the OP presented for discussion includes references to articles which reported the superiority of paper to computer screens in terms of reading comprehension.
I just pointed out that there are a lot of other results which do not support such claim - experimental paradigm, group size of subjects, methology, et cetera impacts on results and the conclusions drawn.
We could start dissecting the article(s) referenced, I think I can contribute to some aspects of it, but I am not sure whether the OP intended a journal club. 😁
nota bene: I never felt personally attacked. I did not intend to attack anyone. It is an interesting subject.
But the literature review makes no mention of reading comprehension. It doesn't show anything contrary to what has been said.
This is what the review covers:
'Here we consider the empirical research concerning the potential impacts of smartphone-related technologies on divided attention and focused attention. Focused attention refers to the capacity to attend to only one source of information while ignoring other incoming stimuli.'
That tells us nothing about reading information on a screen vs paper. It might tell us about our ability to read and ignore other stimuli but I don't think the review compares our ability to ignore stimuli when reading on screens or paper. It also doesn't seem focused on recall either, which is part of the discussion.
If you have some other sources or could point me in the right direction, I would be interested to see them.
(I agree with you on not providing sources, though. That is what prompted me to make my first post in this thread.)
Edit: I do agree that the evidence on smartphones impacting cognitive ability is inconclusive and that impacting cognitive ability can be generalised out to reading comprehension. But the review covers a smartphone's presence and its ability to distract, not whether reading (or writing) on a screen impacts comprehension and recall.
Last edited:
So was demanding references without (at that point) contributing anything to the discussion.
For studies on reading comprehension on screens vs paper, showing that comprehension was lower:
It doesn't demonstrate that it is impossible to read as well on screens as it is on paper - but it shows that we tend not to read as well on screens vs paper.
---
This isn't a link to a study, but I find it very interesting:
"Ziming Liu from San Jose State University has conducted a series of studies which indicate that the “new norm” in reading is skimming, with word-spotting and browsing through the text. Many readers now use an F or Z pattern when reading in which they sample the first line and then word-spot through the rest of the text. When the reading brain skims like this, it reduces time allocated to deep reading processes. In other words, we don’t have time to grasp complexity, to understand another’s feelings, to perceive beauty, and to create thoughts of the reader’s own."
---
It should be pointed out that reading isn't natural. It's not something we just acquire like speaking and listening. Reading, if learned at all, is learned deliberately. To read, we hijack significant portions of our brain that were originally evolved to do other things and retrain them to assist in reading. Just because you're looking at the same words, doesn't mean you're going to experience the same way if you read them in a different way.
"when we skim, we literally, physiologically, don’t have time to think. Or feel. Neuroimaging research by Raymond Marillumines how reading deeply activates areas typically used for feeling and even movement. Immersed in Ta-Nehisi Coates’s description of running from danger in Between the World and Me, we feel fear in limbic regions. When Gwen pitches the game-changing strike in Gish Jen’s novel The Resisters, our motor cortex throws too."
---
Imagine the last deep and meaningful conversation you had with someone, where you were both actively listening to each other, both giving the other time to think and speak, where the space inside that conversation allowed you to articulate thoughts that actually surprised you as you were articulating them.
Now imagine you just got to the staff room and you're chatting to a bunch of coworkers about your weekend. Is your conversation going to have the same quality to it? Are you going to be using your brain in the exact same way when participating in this more shallow discussion? It is possible, but highly unlikely.
That's where I've arrived with screens and paper. You could read just as deeply, but you probably won't.
And it seems the younger you are, with more shallow screen time vs time reading deeply, the worse it is.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you work in academia. You would know from your own experience that when prepping for an exam, actually understanding the concepts is a far better way of remembering information than just writing it down word for word. If you are a professor, you would see the students who take the time to understand things do far better than those who just copy down your slides.
Last edited:
Here is a 2021 review with a meta analysis on of the Effect of Paper Versus Digital Reading on Reading Comprehension in Health Professional Education. Its summary: »Current evidence suggests little to no difference in students’ comprehension when reading HPE texts on paper vs digitally. However, we observed effects favoring reading paper-based texts when texts relevant to the students’ professional discipline were considered. Rigorous studies are needed to confirm this finding and to evaluate new means of boosting reading comprehension among students in HPE programs.«
Again, results for specific experimental paradigms, anecdotical evidence etc. might indicate something different. It’s simply not “black or white”.
The article of the OP adresses memory encoding and retrieval. 16 participants in each of 3 groups (and 15 in a “device”-group, see below).
(some of) the issue(s) IMHO:
Figure 2A indicates that there is little difference in performance time between the “tablet” and the “device” group. The “device”-group is composed of 15 subjects - 8 from “tablet”, 7 from “phone” - which »used paper notebooks for daily schedule management«. Consequently this means 50% of the participants of the “tablet”-, and ~44% of the “phone”-group are inexperienced to perform the given task on the device assigned.
If you look at the “phone”-group data in Figure 2B you see that there seems to be one outlier under the 25% chance level calculated.
So one participant of the 16 “phone”-group subjects performed lower than just guessing in this task.
The authors applied a statistical analysis which does not remove the outlier(s), otherwise the results for the “easy”-retrieval for paper notebook vs. phone look very similar; the accuracy median for the “easy” retrieval task in the “tablet” group is lower.
The article authors then decided to pool the results from these “tablet” and “phone”-group in to a “digital”-group and compare it to the results of the group writing on paper. They find a difference.
The article authors decided not to compare the effect of memory encoding and retrieval of writing Japanese with a pencil on paper vs writing on a tablet.
More of a thought: AFAIK it is shown that unlike an alphabetic script, a Chinese character symbol transmits semantic information. So writing Chinese - or Japanese for that matter - and as a unique embodied practice, writing by hand, seems to contribute to cognitive processing in Chinese - so “how” you write might impact, but "Further investigations are required to elucidate".
One more thing - I personally find always fascinating and delightful is that the results in Figure3B show activity during the retrieval task in the primary visual cortex. But that’s probably just me 🤓
nota bene: of course one can ask for reference to something stated without prior personal contribution to a subject.
Again, results for specific experimental paradigms, anecdotical evidence etc. might indicate something different. It’s simply not “black or white”.
The article of the OP adresses memory encoding and retrieval. 16 participants in each of 3 groups (and 15 in a “device”-group, see below).
(some of) the issue(s) IMHO:
Figure 2A indicates that there is little difference in performance time between the “tablet” and the “device” group. The “device”-group is composed of 15 subjects - 8 from “tablet”, 7 from “phone” - which »used paper notebooks for daily schedule management«. Consequently this means 50% of the participants of the “tablet”-, and ~44% of the “phone”-group are inexperienced to perform the given task on the device assigned.
If you look at the “phone”-group data in Figure 2B you see that there seems to be one outlier under the 25% chance level calculated.
So one participant of the 16 “phone”-group subjects performed lower than just guessing in this task.
The authors applied a statistical analysis which does not remove the outlier(s), otherwise the results for the “easy”-retrieval for paper notebook vs. phone look very similar; the accuracy median for the “easy” retrieval task in the “tablet” group is lower.
The article authors then decided to pool the results from these “tablet” and “phone”-group in to a “digital”-group and compare it to the results of the group writing on paper. They find a difference.
The article authors decided not to compare the effect of memory encoding and retrieval of writing Japanese with a pencil on paper vs writing on a tablet.
More of a thought: AFAIK it is shown that unlike an alphabetic script, a Chinese character symbol transmits semantic information. So writing Chinese - or Japanese for that matter - and as a unique embodied practice, writing by hand, seems to contribute to cognitive processing in Chinese - so “how” you write might impact, but "Further investigations are required to elucidate".
One more thing - I personally find always fascinating and delightful is that the results in Figure3B show activity during the retrieval task in the primary visual cortex. But that’s probably just me 🤓
nota bene: of course one can ask for reference to something stated without prior personal contribution to a subject.
I wish that were always the case. I've recently finished a relatively technical master's degree and although most lecturers are looking for you to have understood the topic, one in particular - who has poor time management and probably skim-reads exam answers whilst marking - seems to look for key words and set sentences that were given during their lectures.
As someone who didn't really revise for the exams, but did attend every lecture in the hope of walking away with an understanding of it, I did very well in most exams but not that one
I've done a lot of digital note taking on my iPad, but nowadays it's definitely pen and paper for me.
Even without distractions like Internet, Messages... there are still disruptive factors:
- the Undo function
- the Zoom function
- the Pan function
- the other, often unnecessary functions of the note taking apps
- the impersonal Apple Pencil