Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

frontiersin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#71

Post by Manouchehri »

intrepidlemon wrote: post #52
geniium wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing I miss is the ability to spread my papers in front of me to think with a global view and mix them and play with them with ease. This is something I never found in any digital product where paper is unbeatable.

This could be achieved with VR although I don’t know of anything product doing this now.

VR resolution is far too poor at the moment in my opinion.

At the office, I use 7200x2560 @ 144Hz (5x 27" vertical). It'll be a few years before we see VR as a competitive alternative.

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#72

Post by grvdrm »

wodenokoto wrote: post #16
ngrilly wrote: post #7

Anyone here did see an improvement in memory retrieval after switching from taking notes by typing on their computer to taking notes on something like Remarkable?

I think the kind of notes you can take with pen and paper beats what you can reasonably do with a keyboard. And I think some of the diagrams and annotated equations you can easily write on paper creates a much better learning experience. But computer notes are much easier to search. So for things like meeting minutes, and daily todos etc, write it in a .txt file. But when following along a deep learning course, write…

Funny - hadn't thought of it this way accidentally used the same approach for an actuarial task.

I was updating an insurance pricing application that had all sorts of formulas for capital requirements, profit load, minimum premium, etc. The formulas were often laid out in SQL but I ultimately wrote them step-by-step on paper to make sure I was truly following the logic (and order of ops). Worked well!

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#74

Post by funksta »

chrisweekly wrote: post #44

One thing I love about my reMarkable tablet is that I get all the benefits of manual handwriting and sketches, enhanced by and combined with digital flexibility (copy/paste, resize, undo/redo, tags/metadata, search, retrieval, PKB integ and interop, etc).

As a big reMarkable fan, my first thought was how much the results would apply to "digital paper". I can't think of any reason why writing on its paper-like surface wouldn't confer the same benefits.

Would love to hear how your PKB integration works!

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#75

Post by bee_rider »

makeitdouble wrote: post #49

One side issue on these studies is there's currently no control group who spent their life solely on electronic devices. Even as tablets are distributed in school from the primary cycle, note taking and exams are all done on paper. This is not a value judgment on wether it's good or bad, just that any further study will be on subjects that spent their formative years writing on paper, they better learn to be good at…

I think “solely on electronic devices” will never happen. But, even ~10 years ago I had friends in college who did all of their note taking on laptops. I sure there are kids who do the same nowadays, right?

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#76

Post by bee_rider »

chrisweekly wrote: post #44

One thing I love about my reMarkable tablet is that I get all the benefits of manual handwriting and sketches, enhanced by and combined with digital flexibility (copy/paste, resize, undo/redo, tags/metadata, search, retrieval, PKB integ and interop, etc).

I thought for a long time that I’d like some sort of Epaper tablet. But I eventually gave up on that idea because I realized I like my particular (not even that fancy, just familiar) mechanical pencil that I’ve been using for ages.

I wonder if that is a well known or widespread phenomenon. The people who would be most enthusiastic about a particular type of device are the most invested in the previous solution, so replacing it for the seemingly “best” customers is a surprisingly high bar.

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#77

Post by keiferski »

falling_myshkin wrote: post #68
keiferski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was just an example used by Steve Jobs to show how computers could enhance human capabilities. Also, using a SRS in conjunction with a memory palace can solve a lot of the reference issues you’re describing.

this combo technique sounds useful, is it something like reviewing memory palaces with spaced repetition, instead of reviewing standalone information?

Something like that, yeah. The idea being that you create a memory palace or physical space, and then memorize a map or route through it via spaced repetition.

Memory palaces are often recommended for reference-type information, so I think this would work well. There are a number of discussions on Art of Memory talking about this:

https://forum.artofmemory.com/t/mind-mapping-memory-techniqu...

https://forum.artofmemory.com/t/anki-to-load-up-a-memory-pal...

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#79

Post by xivzgrev »

I once wrote out a job hunting goal on a sheet of paper and read it 3x per day for a few months, with “crazy” salary and everything. And then, I got it.

I did similar thing later with multiple goals in Google docs. Found that I’m not as consistent with it and haven’t achieved those same goals.

Could be consistency, more goals vs fewer, or the paper vs digital

There’s something about paper that feels more real. It also forces some focus as you only have so much room on paper

Re: Paper vs. devices: Brain activation differences during memory retrieval (2021)

#80

Post by gwervc »

HSO wrote: post #42

NB: this is a Japanese study. The participants wrote their notes in Japanese. If you write on paper, you need to write out each character by hand. In contrast, if you write on a tablet or other device, the input system will sort of "autocomplete" for you. Therefore, more cognitive effort is required to write on paper than on device. It is fairly accepted that greater cognitive effort (either to encode or to retrieve)…

> If you write on paper, you need to write out each character by hand.

Exactly like English or French. You also need to remember the correct sequence of letters (see my remark below).

> In contrast, if you write on a tablet or other device, the input system will sort of "autocomplete" for you.

Exactly like English or French. I didn't write half of the letters used to type this comment.

I think you are searching for Japanese exceptionalism where it probably doesn't apply. Remembering the correct kanji, and graphy of said kanji is pretty much the same as remembering the (wild) orthography of French or English words. I'm searching quite often if a letter is a 'a' or 'e' (doesn't help that cognates between French and English often swap those), the conjugation of a verb or if a letter is doubled or not (again often not the same for related words, for example ennemi vs enemy).

Your perception of the difficulty in-between writing systems is twisted by the decades of education you got in the said system vs the few years of learning another system with a second language. When I see some soup of letters in Japan, it's clear that the question is not just about one system being more simple than the other.

Post reply on HN