read research papers on kindle

Using a Kindle for academic reading

Melonie Fullick explores the pros and cons of using an e-reader in her academic research.

So I got a Kindle for Christmas, and I admit when I opened the box I wasn’t sure what to do with it.

If you’re like me and you’re attached to the sensory experience of using paper, and you don’t like having ever-increasing numbers of gadgets around, then you might not have considered using any kind of e-reader. You might have sniffed at the idea of abandoning the pleasures of books and papers in order to squint at a wee screen. Even if you’re using some digital tools already (and I certainly am), there are so many options available, and switching one’s entire system of reading and note-taking over to something new is a time-consuming process.

Perhaps you also share some of the problems I have, including an excruciatingly slow pace of reading and apparent lack of ability to “skim”, as well as understanding and remembering things better when I can highlight and annotate a text while reading it. E-versions of books had seemed more static, difficult to interact with in ways that worked for me. That’s why I always tended to print out a PDF if I could, and I’d photocopy book chapters so I could make notes in ways that would help me. I also really dislike reading on a computer screen, so tools like Preview weren’t helpful for avoiding print copies; I’d assumed other devices would be similar.

For all those reasons I hadn’t thought about getting any kind of e-reader. The Kindle is a completely new tool for me, so I’ve been figuring it out from scratch; and because some of it has been really useful, I thought I’d discuss what I’ve discovered (and liked and disliked) about it so far in case the information is helpful to others.

The Kindle isn’t really made to deal with academic papers; they don’t show up in (and won’t sync with) your Amazon account. But you can add them to the “documents” folder on the device and they’ll show up there without any conversion required. You can also organize them into folders. The PDF articles can be marked up with highlights or notes; the Kindle has a touchscreen, which isn’t as sleek as that of an Apple product (for example) but is functional all the same, and I also use a stylus for highlighting. You need to get a case for it or the screen gets smudged and scraped.

Using the Kindle has more or less solved the problem of volume, particularly when it comes to reports and academic papers that are published much more quickly than I can read (and/or print) them. Deciding which papers to read and carrying them around with me had also become inconvenient. Because reading can be so difficult for me, sometimes I’ll use excuses not to read at all, such as “I don’t want to look at any of these papers right now”. With the Kindle I can’t use that excuse, because it’s full of papers and books on different topics, so there’s more of a choice about what to read. I’m more likely to finish reading something at one sitting because it’s the only thing in front of me (no distractions on the device).

An unexpected advantage has been that if the type is too small in an article, I can now zoom in on it (within limits), which makes it easier to focus or keep my eyes on the “page”. I can also read more easily while lying on the couch or sitting on a bus or train. On the other hand, small print (especially in articles with two columns to a page) required zooming in unless you want to strain your eyes.

Lastly, I’ve found that one of the biggest benefits of being able to highlight text is that the highlights are saved in a text file (“My Clippings.txt”) that you can then transfer onto your computer and open with Word, TextEdit, etc. It’s one thing that simply isn’t possible when reading from a piece of paper. For me, this is more than a convenience: the urge to mark what I “should go back to” can sometimes be a block to getting anything done at all. Later, the idea of combing through everything I’ve read can feel overwhelming. That’s no longer an issue when each text clipping has the title of the paper and the page on which the quote can be found. In the text file I can also write notes of my own to go with each quote. The only problem that I’ve noticed with highlighting is that the text might be uneven on scans of older documents, which can make it difficult to capture the selection you need.

If this kind of thing sounds useful to you, there are some additional tools that help if you can access them – for example, Adobe Acrobat Pro. Scanned texts (and there are phone apps that can scan for you) have to have OCR applied before you can highlight parts of them; Acrobat Pro is one way to do this ( here are some others ). Often with journal articles, this has already been done with the initial process of digitization. With additional tools such as Evernote and Zotero, you can export and manage your highlights , but so far it seems this only works if they show up in your Kindle account (and with academic papers, many of them won’t). It will be interesting to see if anything happens in future to make academic papers/citations better integrated in this system, since I’m clearly not the only one who’d find that useful.

Aside from the many academic papers (and reports and other documents) you’ve probably downloaded already, there are also books available for free online such as this list from Open Culture , and the Internet Archive . Some of them may be applicable to your research, and having the electronic copy can be handy.

In terms of e-reading tools the Kindle is pretty basic (I’d like something with a slightly larger screen if I had the choice), but “basic” has improved a lot since the first e-readers were released. Of course, I haven’t lost my taste for books and papers – far from it; this isn’t an either/or proposition. As I was writing this post, I was also trying to figure out how to make more space on my bookshelves. But so far the Kindle seems like a good option if you don’t have the budget for an iPad or other tablet, and you’d like to deal with some of the problems I’ve described here.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

In a house with near 8,000 volumes, I used my now obsolete Sony eReader for the majority of reading for my last ms. Portability for the train (commute) and exportability of notes and highlights were the main advantages. It’s also helpful to find more institutional databases offering content in ePub format (Palgrave connect for instance). I much prefer reading in e-ink to my tablet despite using the latter for writing, though neither is as pleasurable as a real book. I’ve found ePubs very effective in the classroom as well and use the format in addition to PDF for my study guides.

You can also retireve the highlighted segments. Highlight and then copy/paste into MS Word or word processor of your choice. The segments are also saved on the web site. So, no chance you will delete them or lose them.

I do want to switch to an e-reader for all the reasons proposed above. The big question for me – which screens work best outdoors? (I like to read outdoors, on a break from the office, or on the deck, camping, in cloudy and sunny weather.) Thanks for any help on this question! It’s never addressed in product reviews.

I am thinking to buy this, but at many places I read, it’s difficult to ready pdfs on kindle so confused whther to buy or not!

When highlighting and making notes in ebooks with the kindle, do they save it with the correct page of the publication, so its possible to use the page in one’s own writing, when using as aninline reference?

Submit News!

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How do I automatically convert academic papers (PDF) for reading on a Kindle?

I got a Kindle for Christmas and I'd like to read some academic papers on it. Almost all of those papers are in either PostScript or the PDF format and made for A4-sized paper. See the example here .

Sending the PDFs to my @kindle.com address (with "convert" as subject) doesn't work because the converter fails to recognize the two-column layout that's so common for those kind of papers and treats it instead as a single column, mixing paragraphs from both columns. Same goes for Calibre unless I'm doing it wrong.

I can certainly read the PDFs on my Kindle in landscape mode but the small font is hard to read and zooming in requires me to pan in all directions because of the column view.

So my question is: Short of converting the files manually, are there any solutions you can think of?

The Calibre manual has a detailed explanation on the difficulties of converting PDFs to other formats .

To re-iterate PDF is a really, really bad format to use as input. If you absolutely must use PDF, then be prepared for an output ranging anywhere from decent to unusable, depending on the input PDF.

That pretty much sums up my experience. I've got a solution in mind but it involves some programming of OCR / Document layout analysis but I'm hoping to avoid having to dive into that particular field. (I'd rather spend my time reading, so any and all suggestions are welcome.)

I like K2pdfopt for this kind of thing.

http://willus.com/k2pdfopt/

on windows it has a (separate) GUI: students.uni-marburg.de/~Wallauej/k2pdfoptgui/k2pdfoptgui.html – n611x007 Nov 5, 2012 at 7:56
GUI is integrated in Windows version now (v2.x). – willus Oct 20, 2013 at 2:29
See willus.com/k2pdfopt/contrib for how to use it on MacOs. – Halil Jul 12, 2016 at 20:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged pdf automation kindle ..

The Overflow Blog
You should keep a developer’s journal
Would you board a plane safety-tested by GenAI?
Featured on Meta
Testing a new version of Stack Overflow Jobs
What deliverables would you like to see out of a working group?

Hot Network Questions

Book about a boy who was blown up or involved in a fire and had to be replaced by robotics, then helped the government or some agency solve crimes
Viability of Hydraulic Telegraph System?
What is a Christian response to the claim that atheists make that "the Bible condones slavery" in Colossians 3:22-25?
What is the significance of the figures Lizzie Q sees in her final moments in "Killers of the Flower Moon"?
Which signals (wifi, mobile phone, gps) can reliably be blocked by aluminum foil
5e: Is this "Chronoblade" homebrew Sorcerer subclass (1st-6th lvl) balanced?
4 Wire connections to fuse box
What is the reason for the priest taking the Eucharist without distributing it to the people at mass?
When does transfer of ownership occur in amateur sale-purchase contracts?
When exactly is ~/snap created?
Contribution of dark matter to running of physical constants
What does "prevailing harmony" mean?
GNU sort command does not sort words of different lengths with common prefixes correctly when using field delimiter
What do people call a chart with a strip of peak values in time intervals?
In which situations is it okay to exceptionally prefix いち/一 to powers of 10 (ten) which are not powers of 10000 (ten thousand)?
When did `apt` output change to include "Done" after "Building dependency tree"?
Can a crater form inside another crater
What are those little pieces for on the C27J?
Pacman can't run. Can't find libicuuc.so.75
How to deal as a PhD student with a working colleague who is doing private business during working hours?
Burgers' equations and shock waves
Communications "cauldron" in Iain Banks novel
Can Maglev trains ever reach escape velocity?
Play Snake Game on Mac OS Terminal using C with ncurses Library

Reading PDFs Effortlessly, on Kindle

Featured In

Table of contents, speechify pdf reader, adobe acrobat reader, foxit reader, sumatra pdf, nitro pdf reader, xodo pdf reader & editor, pdf-xchange editor, how to create kindle compatible formats, how do i put pdf files on my kindle, why isn't my pdf showing up on my kindle, what is the best way to read a pdf on kindle, how many books can 8 gb hold on a kindle, how to convert gif, png, and bmp files to pdf for kindle paperwhite.

Are you a proud owner of an Amazon Kindle device or the Kindle app on your Mac, Windows, Android, iPad, iPhone, or Kindle Fire? If so, you might have wondered...

Are you a proud owner of an Amazon Kindle device or the Kindle app on your Mac, Windows, Android, iPad, iPhone, or Kindle Fire? If so, you might have wondered how to read PDF files on your Kindle. In this comprehensive guide, we'll explore the ins and outs of reading PDFs on Kindle devices and apps, offering step-by-step instructions, useful tips, and recommendations for the best PDF readers. Let's dive in!

What is Kindle?

Before we delve into reading PDFs on Kindle, let's briefly understand what Kindle is. Amazon Kindle is a popular e-book reader and digital bookstore that allows you to access a vast library of Kindle books in various formats like AZW, MOBI, and more. However, it's not limited to just e-books; you can also read PDF files on Kindle.

Can You Read PDF Files on Kindle?

Yes, you can read PDF files on your Kindle device or app, but there are certain considerations to keep in mind. PDFs have their unique formatting, and optimizing them for the Kindle experience requires a few steps.

Top 7 Use Cases for Reading a PDF on Kindle

Academic Research: Students can read research papers and textbooks in PDF format on their Kindle devices, making it convenient for on-the-go studying.
Business Documents: Professionals can access PDF reports, presentations, and manuals for work-related tasks.
Reading Comics and Graphic Novels: Enjoy visually rich content on your Kindle, including comics and graphic novels in PDF format.
User Manuals and Guides: Keep digital copies of product manuals and guides easily accessible on your Kindle for troubleshooting or DIY projects.
Sheet Music: Musicians can carry their sheet music in PDF format and annotate directly on their Kindle.
Travel Guides: Travelers can bring PDF travel guides with them on their Kindle, saving space and weight.
Personal Documents: Archive personal documents, like family recipes or journals, in PDF format for sentimental reading.

How to Read PDF on Kindle

Reading PDFs on your Kindle involves a few steps:

Convert PDF to Kindle Format: Use software like Calibre to convert PDFs to MOBI or AZW format, which is more compatible with Kindle devices.
Connect Kindle to Your Computer: Use a USB cable to connect your Kindle to your computer.
Transfer the Converted File: Drag and drop the converted PDF onto your Kindle in Windows Explorer or Finder (on Mac).
Eject Kindle: Safely eject your Kindle from your computer, and your PDF will be available in your Kindle library.

How to Convert a PDF for a Kindle

To convert a PDF for Kindle, follow these steps:

Download Calibre: Install Calibre, a free e-book management tool, on your computer.
Import PDF: Open Calibre and add your PDF file to your library.
Convert to MOBI: Select the PDF and click "Convert books" to convert it to MOBI format.
Transfer to Kindle: Connect your Kindle and use Calibre to send the converted file to your device.

How To Add PDF To Kindle?

To add a PDF to your Kindle:

Email to Kindle: Send the PDF as an email attachment to your Kindle's unique email address with "convert" in the subject line.
Wi-Fi Transfer: Use the Send to Kindle app or website to transfer PDFs wirelessly to your Kindle device or app.
USB Cable: Manually transfer PDFs by connecting your Kindle to your computer via USB cable.

What is the Size Limit for PDF to Kindle?

While there isn't a strict size limit, larger PDFs may take longer to load and could affect device performance. It's recommended to keep PDFs under 50MB for a smoother reading experience.

How to Send PDF to Kindle Without Email?

You can send PDFs to your Kindle without email by using the Wi-Fi transfer method mentioned earlier or by manually transferring them via a USB cable.

Benefits of Reading a PDF on a Kindle

Portability: Carry a library of PDFs in a compact device.
Annotations: Highlight text, add notes, and bookmark pages.
Reduced Eye Strain: Kindle's e-ink display is easier on the eyes than traditional screens.
Searchability: Easily find and search for text within PDF documents.
Battery Life: Kindle devices offer extended battery life for prolonged reading.

Cliff Weitzman

Cliff Weitzman is a dyslexia advocate and the CEO and founder of Speechify, the #1 text-to-speech app in the world, totaling over 100,000 5-star reviews and ranking first place in the App Store for the News & Magazines category. In 2017, Weitzman was named to the Forbes 30 under 30 list for his work making the internet more accessible to people with learning disabilities. Cliff Weitzman has been featured in EdSurge, Inc., PC Mag, Entrepreneur, Mashable, among other leading outlets.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Comparing comprehension of a long text read in print book and on kindle: where in the text and when in the story.

$\r\nAnne Mangen$

1 Norwegian Reading Centre, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
2 Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Récits Cultures Et Sociétés (LIRCES EA 3159), Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France
3 Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives (UMR 7192), CNRS and Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France

Digital reading devices such as Kindle differ from paper books with respect to the kinesthetic and tactile feedback provided to the reader, but the role of these features in reading is rarely studied empirically. This experiment compares reading of a long text on Kindle DX and in print. Fifty participants (24 years old) read a 28 page (∼1 h reading time) long mystery story on Kindle or in a print pocket book and completed several tests measuring various levels of reading comprehension: engagement, recall, capacities to locate events in the text and reconstructing the plot of the story. Results showed that on most tests subjects performed identically whatever the reading medium. However, on measures related to chronology and temporality, those who had read in the print pocket book, performed better than those who had read on a Kindle. It is concluded that, basically comprehension was similar with both media, but, because kinesthetic feedback is less informative with a Kindle, readers were not as efficient to locate events in the space of the text and hence in the temporality of the story. We suggest that, to get a correct spatial representation of the text and consequently a coherent temporal organization of the story, readers would be reliant on the sensorimotor cues which are afforded by the manipulation of the book.

Introduction

The digitization of literary reading.

Overall, in the western world, reading is increasingly digitized. Due to the popularity of handheld, portable digital devices such as e-readers (e.g., Kindle) and tablets (e.g., iPad), also long-form literary reading is becoming screen- rather than print-bound. This transition invites a number of research questions pertaining to the role of substrate affordances (e.g., screen displays and paper) on cognitive and emotional aspects of narrative, literary reading.

In striking ways, the move from paper to screen makes evident that reading is a case of human-technology interaction ( Mangen and van der Weel, 2016 ). In addition to more commonly addressed perceptual and cognitive components of discourse processing, reading typically entails manual engagement with a device (e.g., a print pocket book, an e-reader or a tablet). Different devices have different user interfaces and material affordances ( Gibson, 1977 ), and the substrate of paper in a print book provides sensorimotor contingencies ( O’Regan and Noë, 2001 ) that differ from those of texts displayed on a screen. Print texts are physically and tangibly contiguous with the medium, whereas digitized texts are physically separable from their medium. This enables a digital device to store a large number of texts and other content.

However, we know little about the ways in which such seemingly subtle differences may interact with cognitive and experiential aspects of reading. Reading scholars of a theoretical ilk have emphasized how reading is more multisensory than commonly acknowledged: “Smell and sight are relevant senses when it comes to reading [,]” says Naomi Baron, “but touch may well be the most important” ( Baron, 2015 , p. 142). Analogously, Mc Laughlin notes how “the feel of the book to the hand, the smell of the paper, the haptic pleasure of manipulating the screen […] reinforce and deepen the habit of reading” ( Mc Laughlin, 2015 , p. 31). Broadly conceptualized, “haptic” (from Greek haptikos = able to touch) refers to the sense of touch. As such, it encompasses both “passive” (cutaneous [tactile]) and “active” (proprioceptive; kinesthetic) sensory processes. In the research literature, terms such as haptic, force feedback, and kinesthetic are often used interchangeably. In this article, kinesthetics will refer to the combined (passive) sense of touch (e.g., pressure; temperature) and the (active) aspects entailed in proprioception (the sense of the relative position of muscles, joints and tendons) and kinesthesia (the sense of movement). 1 Questions concerning the role of haptics and kinesthetics in reading rise to prominence with the current digitization, and the increasing use of e-readers and tablets is an occasion to put such theoretical assumptions to empirical scrutiny.

Reading on Paper and Screens

During the past couple of decades, scientists and scholars in reading research have increasingly taken an interest in potential effects of technological interfaces on aspects of reading and learning, more generally. A large number of empirical studies have been carried out, comparing reading on computer screens and, more recently, on tablets and smartphones, with reading on paper (see Baron, 2015 for an overview). This research spans a range of disciplines and a variety of methodologies, assessing the effects of screen properties on, e.g., perceptual processes ( Roschke and Radach, 2016 ), memory and recall ( Morineau et al., 2005 ; Kerr and Symons, 2006 ; Porion et al., 2016 ), comprehension ( Mangen et al., 2013 ; Margolin et al., 2013 ; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013 ; Hermena et al., 2017 ; Hou et al., 2017 ; Xu et al., 2017 ; Salmerón et al., 2018 ) and metacognition/calibration ( Ackerman and Goldsmith, 2011 ; Norman and Furnes, 2016 ; Sidi et al., 2016 , 2017 ). More recently, research has begun to address topics such as ergonomics ( Köpper et al., 2016 ), issues of medium materiality ( Hou et al., 2017 ) and interactions between medium and particular text types/genres ( Rasmusson, 2014 ; Singer and Alexander, 2017a ). As for effects of medium on reading comprehension, the issue remains somewhat unsettled (see Hermena et al., 2017 ; Xu et al., 2017 ). Some empirical studies have found reading comprehension to be superior on paper ( Kim and Kim, 2013 ; Mangen et al., 2013 ; Rasmusson, 2014 ), whereas others show no differences between paper and screen ( Margolin et al., 2013 ; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013 ; Porion et al., 2016 ). However, a recent meta-analysis ( Delgado et al., 2018 ) of 54 experiments published between 2000 and 2017 comparing the reading of comparable texts on paper and screens does find an advantage for paper both for between-participants and for within-participants studies. The meta-analysis revealed three significant moderators for this main finding: (i) time frame (i.e., the advantage for paper-based reading was stronger in time-constrained reading than in self-paced reading); (ii) text genre: the paper-based reading advantage was consistent across studies using informational text or a mix of informational and narrative texts, but there was no difference for narrative-only texts; and (iii) publication year: contrary to assumptions of “digital natives” becoming better screen readers with increasing screen exposure and experience, the meta-analysis found that the advantage of paper-based reading in fact increased from 2000 to 2017 ( Delgado et al., 2018 ).

In a similar vein, a systematic literature review of empirical research ( Singer and Alexander, 2017b ) found that when participants were reading texts for depth of understanding and not solely for gist, print was the more effective processing medium. Moreover, with respect to reader preferences and habits, a recent large international survey ( Mizrachi et al., 2018 ) with more than 10,000 participants found that, for academic reading, a broad majority reported a preference for print, especially when reading longer texts. Interestingly, participants reported that they felt they remembered the material better and were better able to focus when reading in print, compared to when reading digitally ( Mizrachi et al., 2018 ).

On another note, some studies have revealed a discrepancy between objective and subjective measures. A study ( Kretzschmar et al., 2013 ) combining EEG, eye tracking and questionnaires found that participants overwhelmingly preferred paper over digital reading, but comprehension accuracy did not differ between media.

Visual and Ergonomic Affordances of Paper and Screen Substrates

Screen technologies vary with respect to visual ergonomics. Laptop/computer and tablet (LCD) screens emit light and hence are found to cause eyestrain and visual fatigue ( Baccino, 2004 ; Blehm et al., 2005 ; Yan et al., 2008 ). In contrast, e-readers (e.g., Kindle) are based on electronic ink, a screen substrate specially designed to mimic paper ( Siegenthaler et al., 2011 ). Due to a stable image, wider viewing angle, and the fact that they merely reflect ambient light rather than emitting light, e-readers are more reader friendly than tablets and computers, particularly for longer texts. A growing body of evidence indicates that the readability of e-readers is experienced as being equal to, and occasionally better than, that of paper ( Siegenthaler et al., 2011 , 2012 ; Benedetto et al., 2013 ). In addition, with screens it is possible to scroll up and down the pages of a book. However, scrolling is known to impede readers’ capacity to create an effective mental map of the text ( Hou et al., 2017 ). For these reasons, and unlike earlier studies on narrative reading on paper and screen (e.g., Mangen and Kuiken, 2014 ; Singer and Alexander, 2017a ), we used a Kindle in the present study.

However, when reading a long text included in a book, there is more to reading than meets the eye. Indeed, for a long text printed on many pages, reading does not only involve the eyes: it also involves the hands. Whereas a text displayed on a Kindle and in a print book may be similar with respect to visual properties (the texts look identical on paper and on screen), the two texts differ with respect to the ergonomic affordances of the substrate. Manipulating a printed-book and an e-book is not the same. When reading print text on paper, readers have immediate sensory – kinesthetic and tactile – access to text sequence, as well as to the entirety of the text. The sensorimotor contingencies of paper gives book readers visual as well as kinesthetic feedback to their progress through a text ( Mangen and Kuiken, 2014 ). To know where they are in a text printed on paper, readers have at their disposal several cues: they can have a look at the page number (visual cue), but they can also refer to tactile-kinesthetic cues given by the handling movements informing about the repartition of the weight of the pages on the left and on the right of the current page, and consequently on the number of pages already read and on the number of pages still to read. In addition, the page turning movements might also somehow inform about the number of pages already read. Conversely, screen readers have only visual information on progress and spatial location (e.g., by page numbers or progress bars).

During holding, manipulation of the objects allows to gather information about them even without the aid of vision ( Hatwell et al., 2003 ; Ittyerah, 2017 ). Thanks to manipulation movements, we build an internal representation of the spatial characteristics of the objects. Print books are special objects whose size, weight and volume are a direct indication of the length of the text. This is not the case when reading e-books.

Now, it is often reported by digital readers that they feel it difficult to have a clear representation on the entirety of the text and to localize a given part of information within the text (e.g., Rose, 2011 ), and there is some empirical evidence supporting this phenomenon ( Mangen and Kuiken, 2014 ). For this reason, readers of long documents on computer screen often prefer to print the document ( Baron et al., 2017 ; Mizrachi et al., 2018 ). For a reader, being able to situate where he/she read a given piece of information in the text is important because the relative position of events presented in the space of the text is related to the moment these events took place in the time of the story. For certain types of texts, such as texts relying on plot (the unfolding of the story in a clear logical and temporal fashion), a clear representation of the temporal relationships between the events in a story is crucial to build a coherent situation model sustaining the comprehension of a text. Temporal links between events are generally equivalent to causal connections between these events (usually causes come before their consequences) and causal links between events is one of the components of the situation model ( Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978 ; Kintsch, 1998 ).

When reading on a digital device, haptic and kinesthetic cues such as these are not available to the reader. When reading on a Kindle, for instance, the reader has access to visual cues only with respect to the spatial location of text segments, and to the temporal progression of reading. Therefore, the main hypothesis of this study was that reading a relatively long, linear text on a Kindle generates difficulties to localize relevant events within the space of the text and within the time of the story.

Still, reading experiments using long narrative texts as stimuli is scarce. In what may have been the first experiment to compare narrative engagement when reading a “real,” somewhat longer (ca. 2700 words) narrative text on iPad and on paper, Mangen and Kuiken (2014) found that the paper group reported a better grasp of text length and of their location in the text than the iPad group. Interestingly, however, they found no correlation between this “sense of dislocation” with readers’ reported sense of narrative engagement, nor did the groups differ on cognitive measures ( Mangen and Kuiken, 2014 ).

The present study elaborates Mangen and Kuiken’s study by (i) using a Kindle DX instead of an iPad; (ii) using a longer, literary text in its entirety; and (iii) focusing on potential effects of the Kindle’s lack of, specifically, tactile feedback on spatial location and progress. In addition, in the present study the stimulus text in both conditions is matched for surface dimensions. Whereas Mangen and Kuiken (2014) opted for using the Kindle app for iPad to ensure comparable reader friendliness across conditions, we modeled the print stimulus on the surface measures of the Kindle, so that page layout, margin sizes, sentence number and length, and number of pages were identical in Kindle and in print. This matching was done in order to avoid visual discrepancies as a potential confound, and was important in light of our attempt at disentangling potential effects due to visual ergonomics on the one hand, and effects due to haptics and kinesthetics on the other. We combined cognitive measures of recall and comprehension with subjective measures assessing experiential aspects of reading a mystery short story on Kindle and in a print pocket book. Specifically, we combined word- and sentence recognition tasks, factual recall measures and assessment of readers’ ability to reconstruct spatial and temporal aspects of the text with rating scales assessing aspects of readers’ engagement.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Fifty young adults (mean age 24 ± 3.9; 32 females) participated in the experiment. All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision. They signed a written and informed consent after the procedure was fully explained and were paid for participation. Two participants with learning difficulties were discarded prior to the experiment and replaced by two new subjects. Prior to the reading session, participants completed a questionnaire asking about their study level, reading habits, and familiarity with e-readers. Upon asking participants about their experience with Kindle (or similar device) reading, it was found that some were casual users of e-books. Only two participants among 50 were expert Kindle readers who did all their reading, including literary reading, on their own Kindle. Groups were matched at best with respect to demographic variables (age, gender, education) and reading habits (reading frequency). Considering all these criteria, these two participants were assigned to the Kindle group. Therefore, they read on their preferred device but without unbalancing the two groups regarding e-reader familiarity (see Table 1 ). After the reading session, we checked with the participants if they had read the story before. This was not the case for any of them. The study had prior approval by the Ethics Committee of the Aix-Marseille University (N° RCB 2010-A00155-34) and the CNRS. Participants signed a written informed consent form prior to the study. They were fully debriefed following their participation.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics: demographics and reading habits.

The stimulus was a 28-page (about 10,800 words) mystery story by Elizabeth George, titled Lusting for Jenny, Inverted . The text appears in a collection of short stories ( George, 2010 ). Lusting for Jenny, Inverted is a quite conventional mystery story, a “clever tale of lust, greed and false pretenses” ( Goodstein, 2010 ). It tells the story of an older woman, Jenny, who is called to be the executrix of her aunt’s will. Jenny feels unfulfilled with her comfortable but boring housewife life in Long Beach, California. When she he comes to the isolated Washington state island community to settle her aunt’s estate, she meets a charming young man who seems to offer her romance and excitement. They embark on an affair that seems to promise complete fulfillment of all of Jenny’s desires, but things get very complicated when a very valuable stamp collection is discovered as part of the estate. The story is plot-based, easy to read and progresses in a linear fashion, without any significant analepses (flashbacks) or prolepses (foreshadowing) ( Genette, 1983 ).

Media Dimensions (Print Book and Kindle)

For the print book condition, the 28 pages of the text appeared in a 250-page long dummy pocket book (see Figure 1 ). Ten blank pages preceded the first page of the story, and all pages following the end of the story, were blank. The text was printed recto-verso, just like in a “real” book. The pocketbook was 20.0 cm in height, 14.0 cm in width and 1.8 cm thick. Its weight was 328 g. Great methodological care was taken to ensure similarity of the visual ergonomics of both reading display. The same pdf file was used to create both the print and the e-book. The surface dimensions of each page (font size, sentence length, size of line spacing and margins, letters size) were defined to match exactly those of the screen of the Kindle. In addition, the electronic ink technology used in the Kindle allows long-form reading without visual fatigue which could have a detrimental effect on reading.

Figure 1. The print pocket book and the Kindle. The left-hand page in the print book corresponds to the page displayed on the Kindle.

The Kindle was a Kindle DX, measuring 26.5 cm in height, 18.0 cm in width and 0.5 cm thick. The weight was 540 g. The screen dimensions were: 20.0 cm × 14.0 cm (see Figure 1 ). The reader turned the page by clicking on two buttons on the right side, marked by color-codes and “forward” and “back” labels. In order to ensure maximum comparability with the print book, all other Kindle affordances were disabled (e.g., the keyboard; search options; bookmarking). Before reading, the participant was briefly shown how to turn the pages.

We were particularly interested in potential changes in the participants’ ability to locate events in the text. To avoid that the participants referred to the page numbers to see how many pages they had read, we stripped the texts in both conditions for page numbering and we concealed the progress bar of the Kindle.

Tasks and Procedure

Participants were explained that they participated to an experiment comparing paper and e-book reading and that they have been assigned to one of the reading groups. They were not informed of the exact purpose of the experiment, but only that they will have to read a short story and that they will be asked to answer some questions after their reading. They were not told about the content of the questions. The session took place in a quiet room, and the participant sat in a comfortable chair equipped with armrests. The experimenter was seated in the opposite corner of the room, facing away from the participant. Participants were handed the book opened on the first page and asked to start reading. When the participants had finished reading, the experimenter registered the actual reading time and the participants were asked to estimate the duration of their reading (number of minutes). Although it is not a common assessment in reading experiments, we used the estimated reading time as an indirect index of how far the readers were transported in the story: the longer the estimated time, the lesser the transportation of the reader and vice-versa. Then, the participants completed the tests in the following order:

- Transportation and Engagement Scale : a shortened, 33-item measure assessing aspects of readers’ sense of transportation, narrative engagement and resistance to distraction, largely adapted from Busselle and Bilandzic’s Narrative Engagement Scale ( Busselle and Bilandzic, 2009 ) 2 . This scale has been used extensively in experiments assessing readers’ emotional engagement in narrative fictions (see e.g., Kuijpers et al., 2014 ).

Assessments of readers’ comprehension were inspired by Van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) model of comprehension, defining comprehension as an outcome of the interaction of features of the text and the readers’ knowledge. Van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) model distinguishes between comprehension at text base level (corresponding to the propositional representation of the text at micro- and macro-levels), and the situation model (referring to the representation of the text which is integrated with readers’ prior knowledge), accommodating a nuanced assessment of readers’ mental representations of different textual features at several levels In the present experiment, short-term recall, text-based (surface) level representation were assessed by recognition tasks, whereas situation model representation was assessed with measures tapping into readers’ reconstruction of the story Short term memory of words and sentences denotes the attention readers paid to the text during reading and the text comprehension.

- The Word Recognition Task consisted of 90 words. Participants were asked “Was this word present in the text you just read?” on a computer screen and the response was given using the arrow keys of the keyboard.

- The Sentence Recognition Task contained 40 sentences. Participants were asked “Was this sentence present in the texts you just read?” with the procedure being same as for the word recognition test.

Participants’ factual recall was assessed with a Content Recall Questionnaire comprising 64 multiple-choice items in five categories: (i) Characters : 23 questions about the story characters, their physical characteristics, personality features, relationships between characters (sample item: “How old was Jenny when she had her first child?”); (ii) geographical setting : 9 questions about the locations of the story, assessing readers’ recollection of spatial content (sample item: “What is the name of the island where the story takes place?”); (iii) key locations : 9 questions about key locations in the story (sample item: “In which room in the cottage was Marion Mance found dead?”); (iv): objects : 6 questions about key objects in the story (sample item: “What is the estimated value of the ‘inverted Jenny’ stamp?”); and (v) time and temporality : 7 questions assessing readers’ recollection of temporal dimensions of the story, e.g., time lapse between events, chronology and duration of events (sample item: “For how long do Ian and Jenny stay at Blackberry point before the owners come back?”). Participants gave their response orally, and the examiner registered the response.

- “ Where in the text?” : in a measure inspired by the Rothkopf (1971) . Experiment we asked participants to locate 16 sentence-length condensations of key events to their correct place in the text: the first (pages 1–9), second (pages 10–18), or third part (pages 19–28) (sample item: “When did Ian discover the value of the ‘Inverted Jenny’ stamp?”). The question format sentences were presented, one-by-one, on the screen and the participant gave her response orally. The examiner registered the response.

- Plot Reconstruction Task : 14 sentence-length condensations of key events of the story were written on laminated pieces of paper and were presented in a shuffled order to the participant. Participants were asked to sort them in the correct order, in accordance with the plot. Upon completion of the task, the resulting order was registered by the experimenter.

Statistical Analysis

In all tests, data from both groups were compared using independent samples t -tests, except for the factual recall questionnaire and the ‘where in the text?’ test for which the data were submitted to a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures.

Objective and Subjective Measures of Reading Time

Results are presented in Table 2 . There was no difference between reading media with respect to objective reading time [58 min in average, corresponding to a reading speed of 186 words per minute (wpm), t (48) = 0.34, ns], and reading time estimates were nearly identical across groups [50 min, t (48) = 0.06, ns].

Table 2. Mean (SD) actual and estimated reading times with both reading medium.

Transportation and Engagement Scale

For each participant, responses were summarized for all 33 items of the scale. Results showed no significant between-group difference between ‘print’ and ‘kindle’ groups scores [140 and 149 respectively; t (48) = 0.2, ns].

Word Recognition Task

The mean number of correct responses in this test was 59.8 (±7.5) and 61.2 (±6.9) with the print book and kindle respectively. The difference was not significant [ t (48) = 0.70, ns].

Sentence Recognition Task

The mean number of correct responses in this test was 27.5 (±4.4) and 26.5 (±4.6) with the print book and kindle respectively. The difference was not significant [ t (48) = 0.76, ns].

Factual Recall Questionnaire

Results are presented in Table 3 . As the number of questions differed across sentences categories, we calculated the percentage of correct responses in each category by dividing the number of correct responses by the number of questions in the category. Then, the percentages were arc sinus transformed to be analyzed by means of a two-way ANOVA with category as a within-subject factor and reading medium (print vs. Kindle) as between-subjects factor. The mean number of correct responses was 63.5 and 60.5% for print and e-book respectively [ F (1,48) < 1, ns]. The number of correct responses differed as a function of question category [ F (4,192) = 13.2, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.22]. Because we were particularly interested in the “time and temporality” questions we made a specific planned comparison between the two reading media in this category which revealed a statistically significant difference [ F (1,48) = 4.1, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.08].

Table 3. Factual Recall Questionnaire: Rate of correct responses (%).

‘Where in the Text?’ Measure

There was no significant difference between the two reading media [ F (1,48) = 1.91, ns]. The ‘part of the text’ factor was close to significant [ F (2,96) = 2.97, p < 0.057]. Indicative of a well-known recency effect ( Murdock, 1962 ; Gershberg and Shimamura, 1994 ), participants scored better for questions concerning the last third of the text, compared to the first and second part ( Figure 2 ). Although this effect may seem larger in the Kindle group, the ‘medium’ by ‘part of text’ interaction was not significant [ F (2,96) = 1.1, ns). However, the medium comparison for the first part only revealed a significant effect ( p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.06). In other words, the print book readers gave more correct responses than the Kindle readers for questions concerning the first part of the text.

Figure 2. Where in the text: rate of correct responses (%).

Plot Reconstruction Task

To measure the distance between the correct arrangement of events according to the plot, and the arrangement proposed by the participant, we used the Kendall’s tau rank distance ( Kendall, 1938 , 1962 ), a statistical measure that corresponds to the number of pairwise disagreements between two ranking lists. The more the ranking list given by the participant is far from the exact list, the larger the distance Kendall is 3 . The mean distance was 4.8 for the ‘print’ group and 7.8 for the ‘Kindle’ group, and a t -test showed that the between-group difference was statistically significant [ t (48) = 2.03, p < 0.05; η 2 = 0.08], meaning that the print group performed better (with a shorter distance from the correct order) than the Kindle group on this measure ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3. Plot reconstruction task: distance from correct order.

Correlation Between ‘Where in the Text?’ and Plot Reconstruction Tests

Because both tests were supposed to assess the capacity to localize events in the space of the text and to replace events of the story in the correct order, we supposed that the performance in both tests would be somehow linked. Therefore, we made a regression analysis of the rate of correct responses in the ‘where in the text?’ test and the Kendall distance in the ‘plot reconstruction test across all subjects (both reading media confounded). This analysis revealed a significant correlation between both variables [ R = -0.356, F (1,48) = 6.98, p < 0.02]. The correlation was negative, therefore the greater the number of correct responses given in the ‘where in text?’ test, the smaller the distance between the exact order of the ranking list and the list reconstructed by the participant.

The main objective of this study was to assess the effect of material affordances of a Kindle on cognitive aspects of narrative reading. More specifically, we tested whether the Kindle’s lack of kinesthetic and tactile feedback on the distribution and location of text elements may negatively affect aspects of readers’ cognitive reconstruction of a narrative reading, in particular, with respect to its temporal and chronological dimension.

The question of the material affordances of the reading support has never been really explored and in order to address this question specifically, we made some methodological choices, the most important being the length of the text to read. Obviously, if the kinesthetic feedback generated by the book manipulation matters, it can be only during long-form reading. Therefore, in this experiment we decided to have adult readers to read a long text (10,800 words), requiring approximately 1 h reading and hence a substantial manipulation of the book. Such a long reading time is beyond those usually required in experiments devoted to reading comprehension. Comprehension of long texts involves short- and long-term memory of the text and building a coherent situation model representation, a major feature of which is its global organization into main points and subordinate points ( Kintsch, 1998 ). This situation model might depend partly on a cognitive map, a spatial representation, of the text ( Payne and Reader, 2006 ; Li et al., 2013 ; Hou et al., 2017 ) that the readers automatically build during reading and which might be less precise when reading an e-book as compared to a print book.

The results showed that, on most of the measures, there were no differences between the Kindle and the print pocket book. This is in line with some recent reviews of reading comprehension on paper and screen ( Hermena et al., 2017 ; Xu et al., 2017 ). This was particularly the case concerning the reading time which has been a matter of controversies in the literature, with some authors reporting a slower reading with tablets and others no difference. In the present study, the reading time did not differ according to the type of reading support. Beside the actual reading time, the level of engagement of the reader in the reading was assessed by a questionnaire, and more indirectly, by the subjective reading time. Neither of these measures yielded differences between the reading media, thus we may assume that readers’ emotional engagement were roughly the same with both types of books. Furthermore, readers’ score on the word- and sentence-recognition tests did not differ in the two conditions, suggesting that surface reading and attention paid to the text did not differ between the print book and the e-book. Finally, in the recall questionnaire, most of the questions about the text content did not yield any differences. To conclude, most of the measures we used to assess the text comprehension did not show any differences between print- and e-book.

Nevertheless, some differences were observed between the media regarding tasks tapping into readers’ ability to correctly reconstruct temporal and chronological aspects of the text. In the recall questionnaire, on measures related to time and temporality, those who had read in the print pocket book, performed better than those who had read on a Kindle. The ‘where in the text?’ test, which was specifically devoted to assessing the capacity of the readers to localize the events in the text, also yielded results going in the same direction: paper readers were better at localizing the events than the Kindle readers when the events were the furthest from the end of the book (or at the beginning of the story). Hence, the mental representation of the part of the text corresponding to the reading events which were the most remote in time (at the time of the task), was stronger for those who had read on paper than for those who had read on Kindle. Finally, the plot reconstruction test, which directly assessed the mental representation of the chronology of the story, indicated that print book readers had a more coherent situation model than e-book readers.

How may these differences between the two reading supports be interpreted? First, it is worth emphasizing here that memory of the text per se was not affected by medium. The word and sentence recognition tests and the majority of the recall questions yielded the same results in both reading media. Therefore, the differences on some of the measures cannot be related to differences in memory in the two media, nor can they be explained by differences in attention paid to the text during reading. If either of these had been the case, one would have expected the Kindle group to have performed differently on all the tests.

We suggest that these differences could be interpreted as an indication that the sensorimotor assessment of the device may be related to certain aspects of cognitive processing and, moreover, that these aspects are specifically related to reading longer linear texts. The text used in the present experiment was one in which the temporal unfolding of events in the story corresponded closely with their spatial localization in the text (e.g., no major flashbacks) so that there was a correspondence between “where in the text” and “when in the story” events occur. This is shown by the significant correlation observed between both tests results. In other words, the better the readers were able to locate events in the space of the text, the better their representation of the chronology of the story was. In this respect, the fixity of a text presented on the physical substrate of paper provides material placeholders, functioning to off-load cognitive processes during reading. Such off-loading may be of particular importance when reading certain kinds of texts – for instance, long narrative texts in which the distribution of elements (e.g., story events and characters interactions) according to the unfolding of a narrative (i.e., the plot) matters. On the other hand, the intangibility of a text on a Kindle and lack of fixed cues – “material anchors” ( Schilhab, 2017 ) – to length and spatiotemporal extension of the text may also contribute to a loss of orientation with respect to readers’ assessment of the temporal relations between events in the text. The lack of fixity (and hence less informative tactile feedback) of the text displayed on the Kindle may have left readers less confident about where they are in the text corpus (volume), and this lack of confidence may have had a negative effect on their ability to build a correct representation of the story. Of related relevance, research has shown that having a good mental representation of the spatial representation or layout of the text supports reading comprehension ( Baccino and Pynte, 1994 ; Cataldo and Oakhill, 2000 ; Hou et al., 2017 ). Somehow, the material anchors of paper seem to have provided better scaffolding for aspects of the mental reconstruction than the e-ink display of the Kindle. However, any conclusive interpretation of these results is challenged by the fact that establishing causality is linked to the processing of order events, hence, inferior ordering of events could have been expected to negatively affected readers’ mental construction of causality, in turn resulting in poorer overall comprehension. This was not the case in the present experiment, as readers in both conditions performed equally well on the comprehension measures. Instead, the differences observed may be more closely related to the participants’ ability to correctly locate single events in time , rather than their ability to reconstruct the order of events per se , on a global level. Future research should be designed to enable more precise assessments of the ways in which the affordances of reading substrates – screen displays and paper – may differently affect distinct, but closely related, aspects of mental reconstruction of chronology and temporality during perhaps especially long-form reading. In this task, developing improved measures for inter-events associations is pivotal.

Hou et al. (2017) distinguished two mechanisms to explain why reading on a digital support versus on paper might result in different reading outcomes. The first mechanism contends that, because they lack fixed visual anchors, screens make it difficult for readers to construct an effective spatial representation of the text and, in turn, readers are impaired in their capacity to locate pieces of information in text. The second mechanism they evoked is concerned with the sensorimotor engagement with the paper or digital texts, which was highlighted in the present experiment. We think that these two mechanisms are in fact the two sides of the same coin: both mechanisms could be involved simultaneously and differently depending on the visual display of the screen and the length of the text. Visual cues, informing about spatial relationships between parts of the text within a page, and sensorimotor cues furnished by the book handling and informing about spatial relationships between parts of the text disseminated among pages of the book, likely participate to the construction of the cognitive map of the text. In the present study, since we compared two books with visually identical pages, we focused more on the second aspect of reading.

Another aspect to consider which may help explain the poorer performance on reconstruction of chronology and temporality on a Kindle compared to paper, may be related to the “recursive dimension” of print (see e.g., Wolf, 2018 ). When reading lengthy texts, perhaps in particular narratives and novels, we occasionally need to backtrack to remind ourselves of, for instance, relations between characters, their names, or how events were interconnected. When we read in a print book, we can easily go back and check whenever needed, and we have immediate access to earlier pages whether they are five or fifty pages before the one page we’re currently reading. Obviously, we can also go back on a Kindle, but backtracking on a digital device is not as quick and effortless as with a paper book. Moreover, the reader’s task of locating information on earlier pages, spatially and temporally, is made more challenging with the lack of materiality of a digital text – whether on a Kindle or on an iPad. It may be that such a sense of added cognitive (and sensorimotor) effort discourages readers from going back to re-read earlier parts of a text when reading on a digital device, with a potential effect being a sub-optimal mental representation of spatiotemporal relations between events and/or characters. As this is the first experiment to compare the reading of a long, linear text on paper and screen, we recommend that future studies are designed to address this issue more specifically and in-depth. This could be done by, for instance, using text manipulations that can be assumed to trigger back-tracking and re-reading, for instance by systematically changing information in a way that will require updates in readers’ situation model (e.g., character names or goals; event locations; causal or temporal relationships between events). We may hardly conclude that reading comprehension was affected with e-book because most of the tests did not reveal differences between print and e-book. Yet, reading on an e-book seems to give rise to a less correct representation of the chronology of the events occurring in the story. Because temporal and causal links between events are usually closely connected, the understanding of the story might be somehow different in print and e-book. This point needs to be studied more precisely with longer texts and more specific measures.

Although steps were taken to ensure a more ecologically valid experimental setting than is often the case, it can be discussed whether the masking of page numbers (in both books) and also hiding the progress bar on the Kindle actually introduced an artifact that could somehow have influenced the results. Since we were primarily interested in assessing whether the difference in sensorimotor cues between a paper-based and a screen-based book made a difference for aspects of comprehension, we decided to strip both texts of any visual cues to text length. Based on the results of the present experiment, we can only conclude that sensorimotor cues play a role when reading a print book, whereas they are lacking when reading an e-book. The question remains whether visual cues, such as the progress bar on a Kindle, are equally efficient as sensorimotor cues. Therefore, future studies comparing long-form reading on paper and screen should include page numbers and/or other indicators of text localization, to assess whether such visual aids differently support mental reconstruction on paper and screen, as compared to sensorimotor cues. An additional limitation of the present study is that most of the participants were novices with respect to reading on a Kindle, and it can be claimed that they were not very avid readers of literature. To determine the role of medium expertise and preferences, and to empirically assess the assumptions underlying claims about so-called “digital natives,” future studies should compare reading different kinds of texts on an e-reader and on paper among expert Kindle (and similar device) readers. It would be interesting to also replicate this finding with participants who are more avid literary readers.

The stimulus in this experiment was a plot-based mystery story, to a large extent based on a chronological ordering of actions and events, so that the occurrence of an event in the story content – the “when in the story” – is often closely matched to the spatial location of the text passage in the book – the “where in the text.” While it is not implausible that similar results can be found by using other types of linear, chronologically structured texts (e.g., narratively presented historical accounts in textbooks), replications of the present study are needed, using different types and genres of texts (e.g., literary texts that are less plot-based; expository texts with low degree of narrativity). It may be that the ergonomic and visual affordances of different screen media may differently affect cognitive aspects of reading, depending on a number of variables relating to text (e.g., literary vs. non-literary; degree of narrativity; length; genre; structure/layout; complexity) as well as reader characteristics (e.g., medium/technology expertise and preference). The increasing popularity of the Bring-Your-Own-Device solution (see, e.g., Song, 2014 ) is testimony to the fact that for instance device ownership may be a significant factor in this equation.

Future research should also address the affective and emotional aspects of reading. Beyond applying an adapted version of Busselle and Bilandzic’s (2009) Narrative Engagement Scale, we did not include any measures of emotional and affective aspects. Given that the stimulus text is a mystery story by an established author, this may seem an unfortunate omission. Moreover, applied post hoc , rating scales are also liable to distortion and can more accurately be said to measure readers’ verbalized memory of what they may have felt at the time of reading (see e.g., Jacobs, 2016a , b ). Ideally, offline measures of emotional aspects of reading should be complemented by online measures that are less prone to such distortions. Specifically, ratings and other verbal responses could be fruitfully complemented with online, indirect, behavioral measures such as eye tracking or electrodermal activity, in order to shed more light on the role of affective and emotional processes in perhaps especially long-form, literary reading. The development of sophisticated interdisciplinary and multi-methodological frameworks such as the Neurocognitive Poetics Model ( Jacobs, 2015 ) is especially promising in this respect, applying a combination of measures at neural, behavioral and phenomenological levels in the study of literary – poetic as well as prose – textual material (see also Jacobs and Willems, 2018 ). Overall, we know too little about the ways in which digitization may affect emotional and motivational aspects of reading, and empirical research addressing such questions is much needed (see Kaakinen et al., 2018 ). As noted by Willems and Jacobs (2016) , using literary texts as stimuli is, in this regard, a rich and largely untapped potential.

Limitations as the above notwithstanding, it seems safe to conclude that digitization brings with it the need to update existing models of reading in general, and of reading comprehension, in particular. Importantly, models should be elaborated and refined to account for the role of various features of media (e.g., print books, laptops, tablets, and e-readers) and their substrates (e.g., paper, electronic ink screens, LCD screens) on the reading of various types of texts, for different purposes. Mangen and van der Weel (2016) propose such an integrative, transdisciplinary model, accounting for the psychological, ergonomic, technological, social, cultural and evolutionary aspects of reading and how these are being affected by digitization. An exploratory model, it is intended to point to blanks in our knowledge of the differences between paper and screen reading, hence pointing out directions for future empirical research. The findings of the present experiment indicate that one salient textual parameter to pursue in future research comparing paper and screen reading, is text length and the ways in which a text may prompt re-reading, at various levels and for various reasons.

Although it should be considered largely exploratory, the study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating that paper and screen reading may differ also in cases of linear, narrative reading where there are no hyperlinks to click on or multimedia content to process. Moreover, it illustrates the value of studying parameters not commonly addressed in reading research, such as haptic and tactile feedback. In the process toward more ecologically valid experiments in reading research, the study also contributes valuable insights into aspects of reading comprehension when the text is substantially longer than what is typical in empirical reading research of any disciplinary orientation.

Author Contributions

AM and J-LV conceived and designed the experiments. GO and J-LV performed the experiments. J-LV analyzed the data. AM and J-LV wrote the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Research supported by grants ANR-16-CONV-0002 (ILCB), ANR-11-LABX-0036 (BLRI) and the Excellence Initiative of Aix- Marseille University (A ∗ MIDEX).

^ See, for instance, Klatzky and Lederman (1988) , Lederman and Klatzky (1998) , and Klatzky and Lederman (2002) for more in-depth exploration of these closely related phenomena.
^ Cronbach’s alpha for the original Narrative Engagement Scale was 0.80 (see Table 3 in Busselle and Bilandzic, 2009 ).
^ Kendall tau distance is equivalent to the number of swaps required to place one list in the same order as the other list. If both classifications are identical, the Kendall tau distance = 0; if both classifications are totally in opposite, the Kendall tau distance = N (N-1) / 2 (in this case N = 14), resulting in a maximum distance of 91. The intermediate arrangements have a distance from the correct plot arrangement ranging from 0 to 91.

Ackerman, R., and Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17, 18–32. doi: 10.1037/a0022086

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baccino, T. (2004). La Lecture Electronique. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

Baccino, T., and Pynte, J. (1994). Spatial coding and discourse models during text reading. Lang. Cogn. Process. 9, 143–155. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402114

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baron, N. S. (2015). Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Baron, N. S., Calixte, R. M., and Havewala, M. (2017). The persistence of print among university students: an exploratory study. Telematics Informatics 34, 590–604. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008

Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., and Baccino, T. (2013). E-Readers and visual fatigue. PLoS One 8:e83676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083676

Blehm, C., Vishnu, S., Khattak, A., Mitra, S., and Yee, R. W. (2005). Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv. Ophthalmol. 50, 253–262. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.02.008

Busselle, R., and Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychol. 12, 321–347. doi: 10.1080/15213260903287259

Cataldo, M. G., and Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 791–799. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., and Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: a meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educ. Res. Rev. 25, 23–38. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003

Genette, G. (1983). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

George, E. (2010). “Lusting for jenny, inverted,” in Two of the Deadliest , ed. E. George (New York, NY: HarperCollins), 227–254.

Gershberg, F. B., and Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Serial position effects in implicit and explicit tests of memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20, 1370–1378. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1370

Gibson, J. J. (1977). “The theory of affordances,” in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology , eds R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 67–82.

Goodstein, J. (2010). Book Review: Two of the Deadliest. Available at: http://blogcritics.org/book-review-two-of-the-deadliest/ [accessed May 30, 2017].

Hatwell, Y., Streri, A., and Gentaz, E. (eds) (2003). Touching for Knowing. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Compagny. doi: 10.1075/aicr.53

Hermena, E. W., Sheen, M., AlJassmi, M., AlFalasi, K., AlMatroushi, M., and Jordan, T. R. (2017). Reading rate and comprehension for text presented on tablet and paper: evidence from arabic. Front. Psychol. 8:257. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00257

Hou, J., Rashid, J., and Lee, K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Comput. Hum. Behav. 67, 84–94. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014

Ittyerah, M. (2017). Emerging trends in the multimodal nature of cognition: touch and handedness. Front. Psychol. 8:844. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00844

Jacobs, A. M. (2015). Neurocognitive poetics: methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9:186. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186

Jacobs, A. M. (2016a). The scientific study of literary experience and neuro-behavioral responses to literature. Sci. Study Lit. 6, 164–174. doi: 10.1075/ssol.6.1.08jac

Jacobs, A. M. (2016b). The scientific study of literary experience: sampling the state of the art. Sci. Study Lit. 5, 139–170. doi: 10.1075/ssol.5.2.01jac

Jacobs, A. M., and Willems, R. M. (2018). The fictive brain: neurocognitive correlates of engagement in literature. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 22, 147–160. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000106

Kaakinen, J., Papp-Zipernovszky, O., Werlen, E., Castells, N., Bergamin, P., Baccino, T., et al. (2018). “Emotional and motivational aspects of digital reading,” in Learning to Read in a Digital World , eds M. Barzillai, J. M. Thomson, S. Schroeder, and P. Van den Broek (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 141–164. doi: 10.1075/swll.17.06kaa

Kendall, M. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 81–93. doi: 10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81

Kendall, M. G. (1962). Rank Correlation Methods , 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Hafner Publishing Company.

Kerr, M. A., and Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: effects on children’s reading of informational material. Read. Writ. 19, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y

Kim, H., and Kim, J. (2013). Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: teenagers’ reading performance. Int. J. Res. Stud. Educ. Technol. 2, 15–24. doi: 10.5861/ijrset.2012.170

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W., and van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol. Rev. 85, 363–395. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363

Klatzky, R. L., and Lederman, S. J. (1988). “The intelligent hand,” in Psychology of Learning and Motivation , Vol. 21, ed. G. Bower (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 121–151.

Klatzky, R. L., and Lederman, S. J. (2002). “Touch,” in Handbook of Psychology: Experimental Psychology , Vol. 4, ed. I. B. Weiner (New York, NY: Wiley), 147–176.

Köpper, M., Mayr, S., and Buchner, A. (2016). Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference? Ergonomics 1–18. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757

Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PLoS One 8:e56178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056178

Kuijpers, M. M., Hakemulder, F., Tan, E. S., and Doicaru, M. M. (2014). Exploring absorbing reading experiences. Sci. Study Lit. 4, 89–122. doi: 10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui

Lederman, S. J., and Klatzky, R. L. (1998). “The hand as perceptual system,” in The Psychology of the Hand , ed. K. J. Connolly (London: McKeith Press.), 16–35.

Li, L., Chen, G., and Yang, S. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation. Comput. Educ. 60, 32–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003

Mangen, A., and Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in the iPad: narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Sci. Study Lit. 4, 150–177. doi: 10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man

Mangen, A., and van der Weel, A. (2016). The evolution of reading in the age of digitisation: an integrative framework for reading research. Literacy 50, 116–124. doi: 10.1111/lit.12086

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., and Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screens: effects on reading comprehension. Int. J. Educ. Res. 58, 61–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002

Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., and Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 27, 512–519. doi: 10.1002/acp.2930

Mc Laughlin, T. (2015). Reading and the Body: The Physical Practice of Reading. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-1-137-52289-4

Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A. M., Kurbanoglu, S., and Boustany, J. (2018). Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: a comparative survey analysis. PLoS One 13:e0197444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197444

Morineau, T., Blanche, C., Tobin, L., and Gueguen, N. (2005). The emergence of the contextual role of the e-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and functional analysis. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62, 329–348. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.10.002

Murdock, B. B. Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 482–488. doi: 10.1037/h0045106

Norman, E., and Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media? Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 301–309. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.043

O’Regan, J. K., and Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 939–973. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01000115

Payne, S., and Reader, W. (2006). Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line texts. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64, 461–474. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.003

Porion, A., Aparicio, X., Megalakaki, O., Robert, A., and Baccino, T. (2016). The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 569–576. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.002

Rasmusson, M. (2014). Reading paper – reading screen. Nord. Stud. Educ. 35, 3–19.

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., and Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: a comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Comput. Educ. 63, 259–266. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022

Roschke, K., and Radach, R. (2016). “Perception, reading, and digital media,” in The Cognitive Development of Reading and Reading Comprehension , ed. C. M. Connor (New York, NY: Routledge), 33–52.

Rose, E. (2011). The phenomenology of on-screen reading: University students’ lived experience of digitised text. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 42, 515–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01043.x

Rothkopf, E. Z. (1971). Incidental memory for location of information in text. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 10, 608–613. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80066-X

Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., and van den Broek, P. (2018). “Comprehension processes in digital reading,” in Learning to Read in a Digital World , eds M. Barzillai, J. M. Thomson, S. Schroeder, and P. van den Broek (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 91–120. doi: 10.1075/swll.17.04sal

Schilhab, T. (2017). Derived Embodiment in Abstract Language. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56056-4

Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., and Ackerman, R. (2016). Generalizing screen inferiority-does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks? Metacognit. Learn. 11, 15–33. doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9150-6

Sidi, Y., Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., and Ackerman, R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learn. Instr. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002

Siegenthaler, E., Schmid, L., Wyss, M., and Wurtz, P. (2012). LCD vs. e-ink: an analysis of the reading behaviour. J. Eye Move. Res. 5, 1–7. doi: 10.16910/jemr.5.3.5

Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., and Groner, R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays 32, 268–273. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005

Singer, L. M., and Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Reading across mediums: effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. J. Exp. Educ. 85, 155–172. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794

Singer, L. M., and Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Reading on paper and digitally: what the past decades of empirical research reveal. Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 1007–1041. doi: 10.3102/0034654317722961

Song, Y. (2014). “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Comput. Educ. 74, 50–60. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.005

Van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Willems, R. M., and Jacobs, A. M. (2016). Caring about Dostoyevsky: the untapped potential of studying literature. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 243–245. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.12.009

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World. New York, NY: Harper.

Xu, B., Chen, G., Sun, Y., and Huang, R. (2017). “The effectiveness of media platforms on reading comprehension: a meta-analysis,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in Education , ed. W. Chen (Zhongli District: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education),638–643.

Yan, Z., Hu, L., Chen, H., and Lu, F. (2008). Computer vision syndrome: a widely spreading but largely unknown epidemic among computer users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 2026–2042. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.004

Keywords : reading comprehension, kinesthetic feedback, cognitive map, print-book, kindle, long text reading

Citation: Mangen A, Olivier G and Velay J-L (2019) Comparing Comprehension of a Long Text Read in Print Book and on Kindle: Where in the Text and When in the Story? Front. Psychol. 10:38. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038

Received: 20 September 2018; Accepted: 08 January 2019; Published: 15 February 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Mangen, Olivier and Velay. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jean-Luc Velay, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Electronics

The Kindle Paperwhite E-Reader Converted Me. I May Never Read a Paper Book Again.

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite displayed in an illustrated frame

By Elissa Sanci

Elissa Sanci is a writer on the discovery team. She has found that clear ice makes carbonated drinks taste better, and citronella candles don’t work.

As a kid, I used to bring books out to the playground to read during recess while my classmates ran circles around me.

As a teenager, I used to go to school exhausted after pulling all-nighters to read, and whenever I was bratty, my mom would get her revenge by hiding my half-finished books, a particularly cruel punishment for a dork with a bad attitude.

And as an adult, I spent hundreds of dollars to ship at least 75 pounds of hardcovers and paperbacks across the country when I moved from New York to Denver.

So please believe me when I say it pains me to admit that I’m a recent Kindle convert—and I love reading on it so much, I worry that I may never pick up another physical book again.

The case for Kindles

I formed my voracious-reading habits in elementary school nearly 20 years ago, before ebooks were an option. By the time Kindles became ubiquitous, I was too enamored with the bookish world I’d created for myself to switch to digital. Holding a book in my hands, flipping through its pages and breathing in its musty scent, creasing the spine and leaving fingerprints on the glossy cover—these details were all, to my mind, almost as enjoyable as the act of reading itself. As a person who packed at least three hardcovers for every weekend trip , I knew that an e-reader would be the more practical choice for me, but even thinking about making the switch made me feel guilty, as if I were betraying a good friend.

But then the pandemic closed library doors, cutting off my endless supply of books. I couldn’t afford to buy every new release that intrigued me, so I reluctantly started borrowing ebooks from my library through the Libby app instead. At first I read books on a tablet I already owned. Then I finally managed to snag a Prime Day deal on the Kindle Paperwhite Kids , our former top pick.

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Kids (11th generation)

A former kindle favorite.

The Kids version of the Kindle Paperwhite, which you can switch out of kids mode, has a great display, adjustable color temperature, even lighting, and waterproofing. It costs $20 more than the standard Paperwhite but comes with a cover, a longer warranty, and no ads, any of which would be worth at least $20 alone.

Buying Options

Despite my lifelong love of physical books, the more I use my Kindle, the happier I am with it. And even though I miss the idea of leafing through the pages of paperbacks and feeling the satisfying heft of a particularly long hardcover in my hands, I don’t actually miss the physical task of reading them. A cozy bookshelf stuffed with titles will always make my heart flutter—but waking my Kindle from its slumber has started to bring me that same surge of joy.

Here are all the reasons why.

The Kindle is lightweight and especially portable

A fanny pack with a kindle inside next to a bag of books on a picnic blanket.

Much like Rory Gilmore , I like to have a book on me at all times in the event of unexpected downtime. Before I owned a Kindle, this often posed a logistical challenge: Books can be heavy and cumbersome, taking up precious space in a backpack or an over-the-shoulder tote. If I was carrying a fanny pack, I’d have to forgo a book entirely since I’d have no place to put it.

An e-reader, on the other hand, can hold an entire library of books in a device smaller and slimmer than the shortest paperback. The Kindle Paperwhite Kids—which, once you’ve turned off the parental controls, is essentially the same e-reader as our current upgrade pick in our guide to e-readers , the Kindle Paperwhite —measures about 7 by 5 inches (smaller and thinner than a standard-size Moleskine notebook) and weighs just over 11 ounces (not much heavier than that same notebook). It’s small enough to fit in my Baggu fanny pack, and it’s light enough that I often forget it’s there. Our top pick is even smaller, with a narrower, 6-inch screen.

The physical act of reading a book is a lot easier on a Kindle, too. Hardcover books, especially lengthy ones, can leave my wrists sore and achy. The Kindle Paperwhite Kids is light enough for me to hold for hours-long reading sessions, and its diminutive size makes it easy to hold in one hand. With a cover that folds out into a stand, it even works well hands-free, which makes snacking while reading so much more enjoyable.

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2021)

Larger screen and waterproof.

The waterproof Kindle Paperwhite is worth the investment over the standard Kindle if you want a bigger screen for reading more text at a time, if you want to adjust the color temperature as well as the lighting, and if you do a lot of reading at the beach, by a pool, or in the tub.

Amazon Kindle (2022)

Our current top-pick e-reader.

Amazon’s most affordable Kindle is also its most portable, with a 6-inch screen that has finally been upgraded with a higher pixel density for sharper text and support for USB-C charging. Those features bring it in line with far more expensive e-readers, but it isn’t waterproof, and it displays ads on the lock screen unless you pay extra.

You have access to tons of titles on the fly

Previously, if I was almost but not quite finished with a book before heading off on a weekend trip, I couldn’t just leave it at home, its ending unknown. Of course, I also needed to bring my next book with me so that I’d have something to do when I inevitably finished the first while waiting to board my flight. Not only did this add weight to my bags, but it also meant that I had to squeeze more into an already overstuffed bag . But with a Kindle, I can bring the second book with me while leaving the heft of an additional hardcover back at home.

All Kindles allow you to use OverDrive to borrow free ebooks from your local library, but if you’re waiting on a long hold list and want something to read in the meantime, you also have immediate access to a huge collection of books for purchase. This is especially helpful when the book you just finished ends on a cliff-hanger and the next in the series is already on shelves. You can buy titles à la carte, but if you find yourself itching for the latest and greatest faster than you can get them from the library, you can save by subscribing to Kindle Unlimited . This service gives you on-demand access to an unlimited number of books for a flat rate every month. And the Kindle Paperwhite Kids comes with a free, one-year subscription to Amazon Kids+ , which provides access to kids books, movies, and TV shows.

No light? No problem

The backlit Kindle Paperwhite eliminates the need for separate book lights , so you can read at any time in any environment without hassle. Although the Paperwhite’s backlight is brighter than that of the entry-level Kindle, both types of Kindles provide enough illumination for reading comfortably in the dark. I can easily read in bed at night without disturbing my partner, on an airplane without subjecting my seatmates to overhead dome lights, and as a passenger in a dark car without distracting the driver.

The Kindle Paperwhite also has an adjustable screen color temperature, which allows you to change how much blue light the screen emits; you can toggle this manually or set it on an automatic schedule tied to sunset and sunrise. The standard Kindle doesn’t have this feature, but if you’re not sensitive to warm or cool light, you’ll probably be fine without it.

A close-up of a fanny pack with Kindle sticking out of it.

The Kindle Paperwhite is waterproof

I’ve dropped my fair share of books in the bath, and once they’ve dried out, their crinkled pages never lie flat again. The waterproof Kindle Paperwhite (and the Paperwhite Kids), however, can survive a dunk in water up to 6 feet deep and emerge unscathed. This makes reading in the bath more relaxing, and I especially love that I can float around a pool with my Paperwhite in hand without a single worry. Just keep in mind that the standard Kindle isn’t waterproof, so if you have big plans to read near a body of water, the Paperwhite is worth the upgrade.

The Kindle has useful built-in features

The Kindle is chock-full of helpful features that make reading, and understanding what you’ve read, easier. I particularly like the X-Ray feature, which allows you to learn more about notable people or terms mentioned in your books. I use this feature so often to look up the definition of unfamiliar words that I’ve actually found myself unconsciously pressing down on the pages of a paper book from time to time before realizing what I’m doing.

I’m the kind of bookworm who likes to read with a highlighter in hand. Once I’m done with a book, I’ll transcribe the lines of prose I’ve highlighted into an ongoing Google Doc so that memorable quotes are easier for me to look back on. (The process had a few extra steps when I was reading physical library books I couldn’t mark up—I would take a picture and then draw a crude circle in edit mode around the chunk of text I wanted to remember.) The Kindle makes my archival process so much easier: It collects every bit of writing you highlight into one condensed, easy-to-reference file and saves that information even after you’ve returned a library book.

With very limited access to the internet, Kindles are nearly distraction-free. This is helpful for kids and adults alike—no one is above the temptation of online access. And for readers intimidated or discouraged by long books, e-readers remove the constant visual reminder of how much you still haven’t read. Instead, your progress is tracked on a percentage bar that stays hidden from view unless you call it up, and chapters are broken down into digestible nuggets with estimated reading times.

The Kindle Paperwhite can also stream audiobooks

Whether you have an Audible subscription, buy audiobooks à la carte, or borrow them from the library, you can access the audio from a Kindle Paperwhite or Paperwhite Kids (but not the standard Kindle). However, you have to use Bluetooth headphones or earbuds to listen because the Paperwhite doesn’t have a headphone jack or speaker. If you have both the ebook and audiobook version of a title, you can switch between reading and listening wherever you left off. You can also use the Bluetooth streaming for VoiceView, Amazon’s accessibility program that helps people with low vision navigate the screen.

It offers stellar battery life

Obviously, physical books have a leg up on e-readers in this regard since they don’t require a charge to be functional. But the Kindle has such a long battery life, I sometimes forget that it needs to be plugged in occasionally. It can go weeks between charges, and when it does need juicing up, you can use the same USB-C charging cable that charges laptops, Android phones, and the newest generation of iPhones .

What the Kindle can’t replace

I may love my Kindle (and the accessories that can make reading on it even cozier ), but it will never give me the same satisfaction that turning to the last page of a novel and snapping the book shut for a final time does. Though the Kindle’s progress bar is handy, I personally miss the visual representation of how much I’ve read and how much I have left to go. Finishing a particularly long book felt like more of an accomplishment when I had its full weight in my hands. And when your favorite author leaves you dangling at the end, it’s much more satisfying to fling a book across the room than it is to potentially break your pricey reading gadget. I also miss admiring all the stunning cover artwork on paperbacks and hardcovers—brightly colored covers with vivid illustrations pop in person but feel flat on the Kindle’s black-and-white screen.

There are also some books that I simply need to own in their physical form. My bookshelf is teeming with books from my favorite authors, some with super-creased spines and worn pages from years and years of rereads. There’s something special about being able to walk over to your bookshelf and pick up the very copy of the book that got you into reading in the first place. ( Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone , third grade, bought with a crisp $5 bill in the grade-school gym at the annual Scholastic book fair.) That kind of nostalgia can’t be replaced, nor should it—and if a story I’ve read on my Kindle really resonates with me, owning its digital file will never feel like enough. I’ll have to buy a physical copy of the book, flip through the pages and huff that new-book smell, and add it to my shelves with the rest of my favorites to reread for years to come.

This article was edited by Alexander Aciman and Catherine Kast.

Meet your guide

Elissa Sanci

Senior Staff Writer

Elissa Sanci is a senior staff writer for Wirecutter’s discovery team based in Denver. Her byline has appeared in The New York Times, Woman’s Day, Marie Claire, and Good Housekeeping. When she’s not testing TikTok-famous products or writing about car garbage cans, you can find her hiking somewhere in the Rockies or lying on the couch with a bowl of chips balanced on her chest. There is no in-between.

The Best Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Cases

by Nick Guy

If you want a case for your Kindle Paperwhite, Amazon’s cover is comfortable to hold and uses magnets to keep the cover stowed either open or closed.

A closeup of a person's face half-covered by an e-reader as they read.

How I Customized My Kindle for the Coziest Reading Sessions of My Life

by Kase Wickman

Picture your Kindle hovering just where you want it. You’re wrapped up in a blanket, and you don’t have to move a muscle to turn a page.

Three e-readers laying amongst each other and an assortment of blue and green books.

The Best E-Reader

by Caitlin McGarry and Nick Guy

Amazon’s cheapest Kindle is the best way to read ebooks—whether you buy them from Amazon’s well-stocked store or check them out from the library.

A white Glocusent Bookmark Style Reading Light perched on a book.

This Little Reading Light Helped Me Ditch My Phone and Get Back to Real Books

by Christine Cyr Clisset

If you want to get back into reading paper books and escape internet distractions, this handy reading light might help.

'ZDNET Recommends': What exactly does it mean?

ZDNET's recommendations are based on many hours of testing, research, and comparison shopping. We gather data from the best available sources, including vendor and retailer listings as well as other relevant and independent reviews sites. And we pore over customer reviews to find out what matters to real people who already own and use the products and services we’re assessing.

When you click through from our site to a retailer and buy a product or service, we may earn affiliate commissions. This helps support our work, but does not affect what we cover or how, and it does not affect the price you pay. Neither ZDNET nor the author are compensated for these independent reviews. Indeed, we follow strict guidelines that ensure our editorial content is never influenced by advertisers.

ZDNET's editorial team writes on behalf of you, our reader. Our goal is to deliver the most accurate information and the most knowledgeable advice possible in order to help you make smarter buying decisions on tech gear and a wide array of products and services. Our editors thoroughly review and fact-check every article to ensure that our content meets the highest standards. If we have made an error or published misleading information, we will correct or clarify the article. If you see inaccuracies in our content, please report the mistake via this form .

The best reading tablets you can buy: Expert tested

If you're sick and (physically) tired of the perpetual backaches that come with a heavy book load in your backpack, might we suggest an e-reader instead?

Also: Best Kindle readers of 2024

E-readers allow you to store entire libraries (including books, magazines, and even newspaper subscriptions) in one sleek and lightweight device. Of course, you can pick up most tablets, like an iPad, to read a book, but not all tablets and e-readers are created equal or are easy on the eyes. That's why we've rounded up the best tablets for reading if you're ready to dive into the next book on your list or conserve space in your backpack.

What is the best reading tablet right now?

We compiled this list by extensively going hands-on with the best tablets for reading on the market, considering price, storage, and special features in our testing. Through this, we named the Kindle Paperwhite the best reading tablet overall for its adjustable lighting, performance, and battery life. However, we also include reading tablets from brands like Apple and Samsung so you can find the right tablet for your needs and reading style.

The best reading tablets of 2024

Kindle paperwhite (11th generation), best reading tablet overall.

IPX8 water resistant for reading poolside or in the bath
Adjustable warm light for nighttime reading
Fast performance
Light sensor can be slow to adjust

This Kindle hasn't been updated by Amazon since 2021, but its features, like its adjustable warm light for comfortable reading at night and a long-lasting battery life of up to 10 weeks make it comparable to most e-readers on the market today. Amazon customers who have purchased this Kindle also like its unique features like creating categories to organize your books, uploading your own fonts to use while reading, and the ability to look up words/phrases mid-text and be able to reference past searches.

The screen features Amazon's signature e-ink technology, much different than the shiny display you'd find on an iPad. E-ink provides a paper-like, matte display thanks to 300 pixels per inch (ppi) and 17 front light LEDs.

Review: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite: A classic, now modern, e-reader thanks to USB-C and wireless charging

ZDNET contributing writer, Jason Cipriani, reviewed the Kindle Paperwhite and said the boos in performance is noticeable in the latest generation. "According to Amazon, the new Paperwhite has 20% faster performance when it comes to turning the page in a book," Cipriani wrote. "There's almost no delay after tapping on the screen before the text refreshes with the next page, ready for action."

It's also waterproof (how many tablets can say that?), so you can read by the pool or in the bath without worrying about stray splashes. If you want to upgrade to have the auto-adjusting light feature and 32GB of storage, the Kindle Paperwhite Signature Edition will cost you $50 more.

Kindle Paperwhite specs: Display: 6.8-inch 300 ppi e-ink screen| Battery life: Up to 10 weeks (at 30 minutes per day) | Weight: 7.23 ounces | Storage: 8 GB or 16 GB

Samsung Galaxy Tab A8.4

Best android reading tablet.

Bright and sharp screen
Expandable memory up to 512GB with a microSD card
Runs on an older Android system

The Samsung Galaxy Tab A8.4 is perhaps lesser known compared to its Tab S counterparts, but this small, lightweight Android tablet makes the perfect handheld reading device.

It comes with a 1,920 x 1,200 pixel display with 270 ppi (close to Kindle's 300 ppi), so images and text look bright and sharp on screen.

Also: The best Android tablets

Even though it runs on the outdated Android 9 Pie operating system, you'll still get great tablet features like a 5MP front-facing camera, an 8MP rear camera with autofocus, a long-lasting battery, and the ability to expand your storage to up to 512GB with a microSD card (that's a lot of books!).

One Amazon user who rated this Android tablet 5 out of 5 stars called it the best tablet for its price, saying, "I am an avid Kindle reader and I like to listen to music while I read. Using the Wi-Fi and my Amazon Music Unlimited I have the best of all worlds."

Samsung Galaxy Tab A8.4 specs: Display: 8.4-inch WUXGA Display TFT (270 ppi) | Battery life: 10 hours | Weight: 10.93 oz | Storage: 32GB

Kindle Scribe

Best tablet for reading and note-taking.

Impressive battery life
Included pen for handwritten notes
Compatible with Microsoft Word
Not waterproof
Premium pen upgrade will cost you more
Does not support note-taking on magazines or newspapers

The Kindle Scribe is perhaps the perfect example of part e-reader, part tablet to satisfy your reading and note-taking needs. It has the same functions you've come to know and love in a Kindle, like 300 ppi glare-free screen, weeks of battery life, and adjustable warm light. It's also compatible with Amazon's Basic or Premium Pen, so you can take handwritten notes or underline important quotations within the book you're reading.

Your notes are automatically organized in one place for every book, so you can browse, review, and export them via email. The Kindle Scribe also comes with preset templates to help you create notebooks, journals, and lists, and you can can create sticky notes in Microsoft Word and other compatible Word documents.

Review: Amazon Kindle Scribe

ZDNET contributing writer, Matthew Miller, went hands-on with the Kindle Scribe and called it "close to perfect." "I use my Kindle Scribe daily as my primary note-taking device, and the habit of carrying it has also resulted in me reading more books than I have in years," Miller wrote. "It's an excellent ebook device while also serving as a capable working tablet."

The Kindle Scribe comes with the Basic pen, but for the more advanced features like a dedicated eraser and the shortcut button, you'll need the Premium pen, which costs $30 extra. However, Amazon customers who have reviewed the Kindle Scribe say that the premium pen is worth paying extra for, especially since it has an eraser and a button that lets you switch the nib from writing to highlighting.

Kindle Scribe specs: Display: 10.2-inch 300 ppi Paperwhite display| Battery life: Up to 12 weeks (at 30 minutes per day) | Weight: 15.3 ounces | Storage: 16 GB, 32 GB, or 64 GB

Apple iPad Mini (6th generation)

Best reading tablet for apple users.

Strong performance in A15 Bionic chip
Pixel-dense display makes for sharp text
True Tone technology
Most expensive option

Of course, you don't have to get a dedicated e-reader in order to read on a tablet. The iPad Mini is a powerful tablet with great applications, and it serves as a great reading device thanks to its light weight and sharp screen. It has an 8.3-inch liquid retina display with 326 ppi, which is a higher resolution compared to the Kindles. As a result, text looks especially sharp on screen, and coupled with Apple's True Tone technology (which adjusts the color and intensity of your display to match the ambient light), it provides a natural reading experience.

Review: Apple iPad Mini (6th generation)

Cipriani also tested the Apple iPad Mini and gave it high praise, saying, "I'd be lying if I said I wasn't absolutely fascinated by it." "With the iPad Mini, which ships with iPadOS 15, I set up a new Focus mode that automatically turns on whenever I open the Kindle app," he wrote. "It blocks all alerts and messages from showing up while I'm reading and then turns off once I leave the app."

Apple's anti-reflective screen coating also makes it less likely to catch a sunlight glare when you're reading outside on a sunny day. One Best Buy reviewer notes that the screen display lighting "is quite soft to the eye -- not to mention versatile as well."

With the iPad Mini, you're also getting Apple's powerful A15 bionic chip, an ultra-wide 12 MP front camera, support for the 2nd-generation Apple Pencil to take notes, 80% faster graphics than the previous model, Touch ID, and more.

Apple iPad Mini specs: Display: 8.3-inch Liquid Retina display (326 ppi) | Battery life: 10 hours | Weight: 10.4 ounces | Storage : 64GB or 256GB

Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Tablet (12th generation)

Best kids reading tablet.

Two-year worry-free guarantee
Includes a one-year subscription to Amazon Kids+
Amazon Kids+ subscription will cost extra after free trial
Not as great screen quality as other options

For a kid-friendly reading tablet, Amazon's Fire HD 8 Kids tablet is worth checking out. Not only does it have a kid-proof case built to withstand use by children aged 3 to 7 years old, but it also comes with a free one-year subscription to Amazon Kids+. The subscription gets you access to thousands of kid-friendly ad-free books, as well as movies, games, and other educational content your child will love.

Review: I bought this Amazon kids tablet instead of an iPad and wasn't sorry

ZNDET writer, Maria Diaz, had her kids test out the Fire HD 8 Kids tablet, and called it "a perfect first tablet" built with kids in mind. "Endurance really is the main reason why any parent should buy the Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids," Diaz wrote. "I can't tell you how many times my preschoolers have dropped (or thrown) their [Amazon] tablets and stepped on them 'by accident' over the past three years, yet the screens have remained intact."

Parents can control screen time and set educational goals for their children using parental controls built into the tablet to make sure your kid is actually reading or learning something while using it. Plus, it has 2 MP front and rear-facing cameras with 720p HD video recording with the ability to add themed filters and fun frames to photos.

Overall, 95% of customers who purchased this reading tablet at Best Buy would recommend it to other parents, giving it an overall rating of 4.7 out of 5 stars.

Amazon Fire HD 8 Kids Tablet specs: Display: 8-inch HD display, 1280 x 800 (189 ppi) | Battery life: Up to 13 hours | Weight: 1.14 pounds | Storage: 32GB or 64GB

What is the best reading tablet?

The best reading tablet is the Kindle Paperwhite with reading-specific features like adjustable warm light, as well as a great battery life and screen that's easy on the eyes. Below is an overview of how the best reading tablets compare based on price, display size, and battery life:

Which reading tablet is right for you?

While all of these reading tablets are great options, it ultimately comes down to a few questions. Do you want your tablet to be just for reading, or do you also want it for other things like streaming and web browsing? How big do you want the tablet to be? How much storage space do you need and how much are you willing to spend?

Here is a look at the unique features for each of these reading tablets:

Factors to consider when choosing the best reading tablets:

Whether you want to jot notes while reading, have a tablet with water resistance for poolside browsing, or invest in a kid-friendly option, we have you covered. ZDNET considered price, size, and special features when making our final picks.

Price: A decent e-reader can range from $100 to $500. You can easily find an e-reader or tablet within your desired price range that serves your reading purposes and offers large memory, long lasting battery life, and a lightweight feel for ultimate portability.
Size: If you are opting for an e-reader instead of physical books, you want that device to be lighter than those novels you're lugging around. We considered how much these e-readers and tablets would weigh in that book bag of yours.
Special features: Some e-readers are water-resistant for those beach day or bathtime reads, while other tablets boast matte screens that are designed for easy reading on a sunny day.

How did we test these reading tablets?

When choosing the best tablets for reading, I considered my own experience with some of the products, as well as other ZDNET team members who have went hands-on with these products. ZDNET does extensive hands-on testing of reading tablets, including using the tablets both inside and outside, how long battery life lasts when reading a page-turning book, and more. We test these in real-world situations, especially focusing on reading experience and display.

For the reading tablets we have not gone hands-on with, we do, extensive research into different products and brands, taking into consideration user reviews (both good and bad), competitor analysis, and more.

What is the best tablet size for reading?

The average size book is 6 by 9 inches, so tablets that have a 7 to 10-inch screen are about the same as picking up and reading an actual book. However, pay attention to how much a tablet weighs, since you don't want it to be too heavy for its size.

Also: The best small tablets you can buy

You can also test out what works for you by visiting a local electronics retailer or bookstore.

Is it better to read on a tablet or a Kindle?

If you're serious about reading, getting a Kindle over your average tablet is probably your best bet since they come with reading-specific features like adjustable warm light, waterproof designs, and page-turn buttons.

Also: Which Kindle e-reader is right for you? The top models compared

However, if you want an all-in-one type tablet, you can opt for a tablet like the iPad Mini or the Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8.4 for browsing the web, streaming videos, taking photos, and, of course, reading books.

Is it healthy to read on a tablet?

Like all things, doing something too much or for too long is never good. If you want to use a tablet for reading, be sure to take frequent breaks to give your eyes a rest from the screen. It's also a good idea to invest in a pair of blue light blocking glasses if you plan to read on a tablet at night.

Other products we've tested:

The e-readers and tablets above suit you're reading (and occasional web-surfing or streaming) need, but read on to find some great e-reader and tablet alternatives that we've also tested.

ZDNET Recommends

The best kindles you can buy: expert tested, the best cheap tablets for under $400: expert tested, the best small tablets you can buy: expert tested.

I threw out my Kindle. Nothing compares to a paper book.

I got a Kindle so my partner could sleep while I read at night.
I downloaded books to keep me company since I'm a night owl.
The experience of reading on Kindle was disappointing, and I missed physical books.

It was 2 a.m . My side light was on, and my partner was wrestling with sleep beside me. I knew I should turn off the light to allow him to settle into a deep slumber, but selfishly, I was gripped by "After Dark" by Murakami. His book was an intense trip through a surreal night in neon-lit Tokyo, and I was completely captivated by the liminal vibe.

"When are you going to turn off the light?" I heard my partner say beside me, with a justifiably grumpy tone. I was eating into his sleep time and he had work later in the morning. I instantly felt a pang of guilt for reading so late, so I put my book down, turned off the light, and went to sleep.

Over the next few days, I started researching the Amazon Kindle as a convenient remedy for reading at night. It ticked all the right boxes–it saved money and space, it gave me unbridled access to a wide range of books, it was portable, and it also had useful features like font customization. I was convinced and purchased one.

At first, I was excited

Once it arrived, I spent time downloading a bunch of fiction novels and relished in the fact that, as a night owl, I no longer had to choose between reading and letting my partner sleep. I could finally read in the dark. The Kindle was lightweight and gentle on my eyes. Perfect.

I went on a binge read and was easily going through one book every two to three days with the Kindle . It made reading so efficient and streamlined. However, something felt off. Reading an entire book on a digital device felt unnatural and impersonal.

Though I tried, I couldn't maintain focus. Full immersion into stories was difficult, and I found myself unable to recall certain parts. I could never quite get into stories the same way. And it's not just me — a 2014 study found that Kindle readers absorb less than on paper, and a 2019 study found that Kindle readers performed worse when measuring chronology and temporality.

I always knew a Kindle would be a hard sell for me because there's something uniquely special about the tactile nature of physical books. The sound of turning each page. The feeling of a book's crisp, textured pages. The delicate process of folding the corners of pages as bookmarks. Not to mention the earthy, nostalgic smell of a book.

I wasn't enjoying reading

It didn't take long to realize that reading, and how much I enjoy a book , was largely dependent on my other senses being engaged. This was something that a Kindle couldn't replicate.

Growing up, my favorite books were "Chocolat" by Joanne Harris and "Memoirs of a Geisha" by Arthur Golden. I distinctly remember how I felt when I first read them, the words turning into vivid images in my mind, latching onto every description, every dialogue, eagerly awaiting the next page.

But when I tried to reread both books on my Kindle, the experience was disappointingly lackluster. I didn't feel the same emotion and connection as I once did to the characters and story. I ultimately came to the conclusion that the Kindle created too much detachment for me, so it had to go.

I've always felt a deep, personal connection to printed materials, so I wasn't surprised when I fell out of love with the Kindle after less than a year. I'm the kind of person who is guilty of choosing a book from a bookstore or library just because I like the cover design, the text formatting inside, or the type of binding used on the spine. The Kindle didn't offer me that aesthetic thrill.

While I do sometimes miss the fact that I could literally bring my entire library with me on the go, I'll never underestimate the experience of reading a beautifully printed physical book.

If you enjoyed this story, be sure to follow Business Insider on Microsoft Start.

I threw out my Kindle. Nothing compares to a paper book.

Best sellers

Bridgerton: Daphne's Story, The Inspiration for Bridgerton Season One (Bridgertons Book 1)

Amazon Newsletter
About Amazon
Accessibility
Sustainability
Press Center
Investor Relations
Amazon Devices
Amazon Science
Sell on Amazon
Sell apps on Amazon
Supply to Amazon
Protect & Build Your Brand
Become an Affiliate
Become a Delivery Driver
Start a Package Delivery Business
Advertise Your Products
Self-Publish with Us
Become an Amazon Hub Partner
› See More Ways to Make Money
Amazon Visa
Amazon Store Card
Amazon Secured Card
Amazon Business Card
Shop with Points
Credit Card Marketplace
Reload Your Balance
Amazon Currency Converter
Your Account
Your Orders
Shipping Rates & Policies
Amazon Prime
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices
Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
Your Ads Privacy Choices

IMAGES

Writing Research Papers: A Complete Guide, Global Edition eBook
Read Research Papers on Kindle and PDF Optimization for Kindle
How to Read a Research Paper
How to read Research Papers
Read research papers FAST (5 little-known techniques)
How to Read A Scientific Paper: A Quick & Effective Method

VIDEO

Must Read Research Papers for Data Scientists
College Finals Week: how I read research papers on iPad #kilonotes #study #college #student #read

COMMENTS

Reading Science Papers on Your Kindle
Download a copy of Bookerly and convert all font to it. Save the document as a pdf. Email the pdf to Amazon with the subject line "convert". Wait a minute and then sync your Kindle to download the paper. Enjoy your new Kindle readable paper! Below is an example of the output of steps 1-7. My lab put out an open access article on retinal ...
Using a Kindle for academic reading
Using the Kindle has more or less solved the problem of volume, particularly when it comes to reports and academic papers that are published much more quickly than I can read (and/or print) them. Deciding which papers to read and carrying them around with me had also become inconvenient. Because reading can be so difficult for me, sometimes I ...
A Student's Guide to Using the Kindle for Research
Smart lookup is simple: just tap on a word and the Kindle will look up the dictionary and Wikipedia definition. This makes it so you can instantly research a word without losing your place in the ...
Kindle & Research: 6 Pro Tips for Reading Academic Papers
In this informative video, we present six insightful tips for effectively reading research papers on Kindle. 📘 Whether you are a student, researcher, or si...
Tip for reading scientific papers on Kindle
Other Browsers (Edge, Chrome) should have a similar feature. -In 'Reader View', right-click anywhere on the page, then in the pop-up menu 'Save page as...' and save as 'Type: Web Page, complete'. This creates a .html file of the simplified webpage. -Send the .html file to your Kindle via e-mail.
Read Research Papers on Kindle and PDF Optimization for Kindle
Sep 16, 2021. It is possible to read research papers on Kindle using the tool k2pdfopt, especially with the built-in mode option, device option and the automatic rotation alignment function, which ...
Has anyone experience in reading scientific papers with e-readers (kindle)?
The kindle is fantastic for reading books that are designed to be read on an e reader, but for scientific papers, its a complete wast of money. Cite 4 Recommendations
Can I use Kindle to read research papers?
I am also mainly using kindle to read research papers. PDF files with two columns are running smoothly and fast on kindle (from the performance point of view). The problem is that, in 100% zoom level, the text is very small and somehow impossible to read. (If you want to simulate the real size of text on 100% zoom level in kindle, try to zoom ...
Can / are kindles good for reading scientific papers? : r/kindle
I had to read about 4 research papers (PDF format) per week and got a kindle because of it. 2-columns is a little annoying, but what I found worked the best was rotating to landscape, strongest contrast, zooming to actual size, and reading one column at a time.
Scientific papers on Kindle
For PDF papers to be read on Kindle, there are two great options. One is a program called K2pdfopt which reformats PDFs to be enormously more readable on Kindle. A wonderful program. Have a look at some of the examples in this thread. And the other is consider using koreader (requires jailbreak).
How do I automatically convert academic papers (PDF) for reading on a
Almost all of those papers are in either PostScript or the PDF format and made for A4-sized paper. See the example here . Sending the PDFs to my @kindle.com address (with "convert" as subject) doesn't work because the converter fails to recognize the two-column layout that's so common for those kind of papers and treats it instead as a single ...
Reading PDFs Effortlessly, on Kindle
Top 7 Use Cases for Reading a PDF on Kindle. Academic Research: Students can read research papers and textbooks in PDF format on their Kindle devices, making it convenient for on-the-go studying. Business Documents: Professionals can access PDF reports, presentations, and manuals for work-related tasks.
Is Kindle Scribe good for academic PDFs? : r/kindle
Related Kindle e-Reader Book Reading, Writing, and Literature forward back r/ereader An e-reader, also called an e-book reader or e-book device, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.
Frontiers
1 Norwegian Reading Centre, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway; 2 Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Récits Cultures Et Sociétés (LIRCES EA 3159), Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France; 3 Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives (UMR 7192), CNRS and Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France; Digital reading devices such as Kindle differ from paper books with respect to the ...
The Kindle Paperwhite E-Reader Converted Me. I May Never Read a Paper
The backlit Kindle Paperwhite eliminates the need for separate book lights, so you can read at any time in any environment without hassle. Although the Paperwhite's backlight is brighter than ...
Reading scientific papers (pdf) on Kindle paperwhite
My primary use would be to read scientific papers, mostly about physics, and with equations. ... Does this work well on research paper that has math formulas in it? - Jan van ... 1 As mentioned, k2pdfopt is the best choice. To make it easier to use, I made this service for anyone want to read academic papers on kindle like me. Link: http ...
eInk eBook reader for reading scientific PDF papers (as of 2018)
Kindle Paperwhite is great for reading entertainment books. I was looking for a device for reading academic books and paper as well, my research shows three devices/brands: Sony DPT RP1(13.3")/CP1(10.3"): good looking, really light, not good writing experience through; Onyx Boox Max(13.3")/Note(10.3"): with Android 6.0 system's full functionality
How good is a Kindle Paperwhite for reading research papers?
Any kindle are not recommended for reading research paper. I own the latest kindle and i still read research papers. The issue lies in screen size and screen refresh rate. You will need to zoom every page and move the page to read the whole page. And this is very painful to do in kindle. Converting pdf to epub is next to impossible due to ...
The best reading tablets of 2024: Expert tested and recommended
Reviewed by Alison DeNisco Rayome. Kindle Paperwhite (11th generation) Best reading tablet overall. Samsung Galaxy Tab A8.4. Best Android reading tablet. Kindle Scribe. Best tablet for reading and ...
Kindle integration
Feature requests. Rahul_Jha January 28, 2023, 12:18pm 1. Hi. I wonder if it's possible to integrated kindle with Paperpile so that we can rely on kindle device to read the research papers that are listed ? You see, sometimes we do not want to stare at screen for reading research paper it's so tiring. Gareth_Lock January 30, 2023, 5:08pm 2.
Kindle vs iBooks for School and Research
Digital books and documents are the norm for reading these days. Electronic reading resources are used for all types of reading - but, what about school and ...
Research papers reading on a kindle. : r/kindle
Research papers reading on a kindle. I am planning to buy a kindle to read research papers. Now these papers are in pdf format. Each page has two columns of text. It has many tables (which can span entire width of A4 page while the text above and below it is still in two columns), diagrams (black and white may as well contain shades of grey).
I threw out my Kindle. Nothing compares to a paper book.
Nothing compares to a paper book. I threw out my Kindle. Nothing compares to a paper book. I got a Kindle so my partner could sleep while I read at night. I downloaded books to keep me company ...
Free Kindle Reading Apps for iOS, Android, Mac, and PC
Turn your phone or tablet into a book with the free Kindle apps for iOS, Android, Mac, and PC. Read anytime, anywhere on your phone, tablet, or computer. Go beyond paper with immersive, built-in features.
Kindle Scribe for academics —- anyone have any experience?
As doing academic work requires juggling between many PDFs and scanning the pages quickly, it was just too unpractical and slow. I know these are general annoyances of e-readers, but my 5 year old kindle Paperwhite is quite faster in comparison to the Kobo Elipsa, which is why I'm now considering the Kindle Scribe for the above mentioned work ...