Does reading on paper allow for better information retention than reading on a screen?

Source: French to English Tester   Published on: 2026-06-08

Source: The Conversation – in French– By Erik D Reichle, Professor of cognitive psychology, Macquarie University

Reading is one of the most difficult skills to acquire. Do digital media make this process even more complex? What does research tell us about the differences between reading on screen and reading on paper?

---

The Swedish government recently announced that it is giving up the use of digital devices in classto go back to paper books. He mentioned concerns related to the decline in academic performance and the increase in time spent in front of screens.

Are these concerns justified? And what does science say about the possible consequences of digital devices on reading, compared to reading on paper?

To answer these questions, it is important to recall that, even though reading may seem like an easy task, this impression is deceptive. Reading is undoubtedly the most difficult skill to acquire: it requires years of formal education and practice to master. Unlike spoken language, it is a skill for which we are not biologically predisposed.

Why is reading so difficult?

First, it is necessary to understand the physiology of reading to understand why this task is so complex.

While you read this sentence, your eyes make a series of rapid movements, calledsaccades, from one word to another. During these jerks, the processing of visual information is suspended and is only possible during brief intervals, called fixations, when the eyes are still.

Experiments aiming to measure eye movements during readinghave shownthat we fixate on most words, because our capacity to extract visual information during each fixation is extremely limited.

In languages, such as English or French, which are read from left to right, our ability to perceive the characteristics that distinguish letters is limited to a small area of the visual field called the “perceptual field.” This field extends from 2 to 3 letter spaces to the left of the fixation point to 8 to 12 letter spaces to the right of it.

The asymmetry of this area reflects the path of the gaze through the text. It extends to the left in languages like Arabic, which are read from right to left. The size of this area is smaller for dense writing systems, such as Chinese.

We also know, thanks to someexperiencesof oculometry and brain imaging, that word identification takes time. According to our best estimates, visual information takes60 millisecondsto spread from the eyes to the brain, and the identification of words then requires an additional 100 to 300 milliseconds (one millisecond equals one thousandth of a second).

These constraints limit the maximum reading speed to 300-400 words per minute, depending on the difficulty of the text and each person’s level of understanding.

Thepromotersof speed reading, which wrongly promise higher reading speeds, teach you to skim through a text. Comprehension decreases in inverse proportion to the speed gain.

It is important to note that the maximum reading speed is only acquired after several years of practice, as it requires the brain systems responsible for vision, attention, word recognition, language processing, and eye movements to function in perfect coordination. Anything that hinders this coordination therefore reduces comprehension.

The consequences of reading on screen

What then are the likely consequences of digital reading?

With certain devices, like e-readers, there is nohardly any reason to thinkthat digital reading differs from reading on paper, as these two formats promote the mental processes necessary for effective reading.

The most debatable devices are those that introduce distractions (such as news sites dotted with advertisements) or that present a less than optimal layout, such as text justified in the center with large or uneven spaces between words. The latter case is rarely found in printed texts.

Although the consequences of these two factors have been little studied, our knowledge of human cognition is now sufficient to make informed predictions.

For example, images and sounds unrelated to a text, such as intrusive advertisements, can capture attention. While most adults have developed a sufficient level of executive control to ignore such distractions, this is not the case for young children.

The consequences for a child who has difficulty grasping the meaning of a text are obvious. Their understanding will be affected to the extent that they will have to make an additional effort to ignore distractions, or if they do not yet have the necessary mental coordination to realize that reading of the text has been interrupted.

Studies based on theoculometryalso show that numerous digital environments, such as web pages, can encourage the adoption of specific reading strategies, such as speed reading, to grasp the essential or search for information.

Even if such strategies may prove suitable in certain contexts, they undermine overall comprehension. This situation should be particularly concerning for children, as it takes years of practice to coordinate the mental processes that allow reaching a reading level equivalent to that of adults.

These concerns have recently attracted increased attention, as the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic led to a shift to online teaching and a significant increase in digital reading. Although these changes were driven by practical imperatives, their long-term consequences remain uncertain.

Until now, research on eye-tracking has been conducted on computer screens. New technologies are emerging, which will allow us to directly compare eye movements and comprehension between digital devices and paper. This should help us better understand the advantages and disadvantages of digital devices.

Given that reading ability is an indicatorpredictiveRegarding a person’s level of education, socioeconomic status, and well-being, one cannot stress enough the importance of evaluating the long-term consequences of digital reading.

Erik D Reichle has received funding from the US National Institute of Health, the US Institute of Education Sciences, the UK Economic and Social Research Council, and the Australian Research Council.

Lili Yu does not work for, advise, hold shares in, receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation than her research institute.

–ref. Does reading on paper allow better assimilation of information than reading on screen?https://theconversation.com/does-reading-on-paper-allow-better-assimilation-of-information-than-reading-on-screen-284166