Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Know what? How digital technologies undermine learning

and remembering
Naomi S. Baron
American University, Gray Hall 114, Washington, DC, 20016-8045, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Are digital technologies affecting how we learn, what we know, and how we remember?
Available online 29 January 2021 We examine three aspects of these questions: the impact of the internet on cognitive skills,
the way GPS is reshaping abilities to navigate physical space, and differences between
Keywords: digital and print reading. The goal of the analysis is to understand potential effects of
Cognitive map digital technologies on educational practices and goals.
GPS
We begin by reviewing research demonstrating the growing tendency to depend on digital
Internet
devices and the internet to do our remembering for us. Regarding GPS, there is mounting
Learning
Memory
evidence that reliance on GPS devices reduces our ability to navigate physical space on our
Reading own. Worryingly, studies indicate correlations between decreased navigational skills and
dementia. Finally, the article documents how digital reading tends to lead to a more su-
perficial approach to text than traditional print.
Technologies have consequences, including in education. If digital technologies lead to
diminished memory, lower our ability to find our way in physical space, and foster shal-
lower reading, we need to consider the consequences for both formal and informal
learning.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

What does it mean to say we know something? Sometimes we are asserting a hunch or intuition, as in “I know you are
right.” But on other occasions, we are talking about the fruits of mental effort applied to learning, as in “I know my multi-
plication tables.” Such knowledge is inextricably linked with memory. The development of writing enabled us to store much
of what we know (along with stories we tell) on durable media. To learn something new, I can read about it. If I forget a fact or
an event, I can look it up.
Digital technologies (including computers, networking, internet search capabilities, and programs such as GPS) have
dramatically expanded our possibilities for durable back-ups for learning and remembering. While consulting printed works
requires physical access, computers and the internet have put information literally at our fingertips. Resources available
online make the internet a formidable challenger to the world's great libraries and to motivation for holding what we learn in
our heads.
This article examines the effects of digital technologies on learning, knowing, and remembering in three cognitive do-
mains: memory, physical navigation, and reading. Notions such as ‘learning’, ‘knowing’, and ‘remembering’ are at once
imprecise and complex. Definitions vary, often reflecting particular psychological theories or philosophical stances. Here, we

E-mail address: nbaron@american.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011
0378-2166/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

assume lay understandings of these terms. By ‘learning’, we mean acquisition of new information (as in learning how to
conjugate a verb in French). By ‘knowing’, we have in mind either surface information (such as ocean temperature change
over time) or analyzed information (leading to conclusions about climate change) that becomes part of our cognitive arsenal.
By ‘remembering’, we mean committing what we learn or experience to short-term or long-term memory.
We begin our discussion with the impact on memory skills of internet searches for information. Next, we consider how
GPS may be reshaping our abilities to navigate. Third, we turn to digital reading, as both a memory and navigation issue. We
close by placing these analyses in pedagogical context, confronting how digital technologies in their various manifestations
are redefining educational practices and, potentially, aspirations.

2. Memory and the internet

People increasingly turn to online search engines for data or information. But this usage is encouraging an attitudinal
transformation as well. Rather than troubling ourselves to remember what we looked up (much less attempting to integrate
such findings with prior knowledge), we treat the exercise as a one-off. After all, we can always look it up again. In the words
of psychologist Paul Marsden, “Digital devices are the new flash drives of the mind,” with the result of generating ‘digital
amnesia’ (Kaspersky Lab, 2016: 5).
Research affirms how access to digital technologies is reshaping attitudes to learning, remembering, and knowing. In the
1980s, psychologist Daniel Wegner (1986) argued that rather than trying to remember everything ourselves, people often rely
on what he called ‘transactive memory’. Instead of a single individual needing to remember everything himself or herself, a
pair or group of people can divide up who remembers what. For example, one member of a couple might remember family
birthdays, while the other remembers how to change a flat tire.
One of Wegner's colleagues, Betsy Sparrow, suggested considering the internet as a transactive memory partner, meaning
that instead of having to remember information yourself, the internet would ‘remember’ it for you. Sparrow et al. (2011)
demonstrated that when doing internet searches,

- users who were tested on a memory task were less likely to remember the information if they
believed they could look it up again
- users were more likely to remember their search paths than what they found

Research by Kaspersky Lab (2015a, b) provided further evidence of our reliance on digital devices to do our remembering
for us. Studies were conducted in both Europe and the United States. The European component included 6,000 consumers
between the ages of 16 and 55þ, with 1,000 each from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Benelux countries
(Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg). The US sample including 1,000 consumers from the same age range.
Results from both Europeans and Americans showed that 61% of each group felt it was not necessary to remember facts
unearthed online, only to recall where you located them. When asked if they forgot an online fact as soon as they found it,
more than a quarter said yes. Moreover, many did not feel motivated to try remembering something they once knew before
resorting to their virtual Jeeves. Among Europeans, 57% said they first tried to remember, while 36% reported going directly
online. Among Americans, only 39% reported first attempting to remember, while 50% headed straight for the internet.
Relegating memory to external devices matters. As the cognitive neuroscientist Maria Wimber explains, directly looking
up information without first trying to recall it undermines construction of long-term memories and makes for shallower
information processing (Kaspersky Lab, 2015b).
Storm et al. (2017) confirm this modern tendency to lean on the internet to remember for us (‘cognitive offloading’).
Moreover, ceding memory (and, by extension, knowing) to digital devices may explain another startling phenomenon:
believing we know something we do not, because potentially we could look it up online. Building on Sparrow et al.’s model of
the internet as a transactive memory partner, Fisher et al. (2015) demonstrated that internet searches led people to confound
information available online with what they themselves know. Study participants who had done an internet search on topic X
believed they knew about topic Y e which they had not researched e just because in principle they could look it up.
There is a human tendency to offload memory to external repositories that present themselves. Several experiments have
shown how offloading memory to photographs diminishes recollection of what we have seen.
Henkel (2014) had undergraduates visit 30 objects (such as paintings, sculptures, and mosaics) in a museum. The students
were asked to photograph half of the objects and only observe the rest. The following day, participants were tested regarding
which objects they had seen, plus details about those objects. Both memories were lower for objects they had photographed.
Soares and Storm (2018) tested subsequent memory of paintings under various conditions: when undergraduate participants
were asked to simply observe the paintings, to take and save photos of the paintings, to photograph paintings and send the
photos out on Snapchat (from which posts soon disappear), and to photograph the paintings but then delete the photos. The
best memory came when only observing. The authors concluded that the very process of taking photos interferes with the
cognitive act of viewing.
Work by Tamir et al. (2018) supports this conclusion. Study participants who either watched a TED Talk or toured a campus
church were asked to engage in one of several activities, including taking written notes or photos, sharing the experience on

28
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

social media, or simply internally reflecting. Subsequent memory tests revealed lower scores in all conditions that entailed
externally memorializing the event. In the authors’ words, “Creating a hard copy of an experience through media leaves only a
diminished copy in our own heads” (p.167).
More than 2400 years ago, Socrates had worried that writing e then a relatively new technology in Attic Greece e would
undermine human memory: “[t]his invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because
they will not practice their memory” (Phaedrus 275). Mounting evidence confirms that modern technologies (from cameras to
the internet) that externalize knowledge or experience are having the same effect.

3. The case of GPS

To further illustrate the powerful impact of digital technologies on learning and remembering, we consider GPS e the
Global Positioning System. GPS was developed by the US Government for improving the accuracy of bombs (Milner, 2016). But
for billions of us, that's now ancient history.
Today, we use GPS to locate ourselves in new cities or navigate familiar terrain. Taxi drivers deposit us at destinations
neither we nor they could find independently. GPS enables us to skirt traffic jams or road construction. Syrian refugees
making their way to Europe relied on their smartphones’ GPS to chart the path (Dekker et al., 2018). But the technology is
imperfect. It sometimes directs people to take implausible routes, occasionally with disastrous results (Milner, 2016).
There is another downside. GPS may be compromising our brains. To understand how, we need to think about
neuroplasticity.

3.1. Neuroplasticity

Neuroplasticity refers to the brain's ability to reorganize its structure or lay down new pathways. Thanks to neuro-
plasticity, people develop new mental habits, patients can recover from strokes, and mental or physical training leads to
measurable changes in our brains. (See Costandi, 2016 for more discussion of neuroplasticity, including its scientific
history).
Until relatively recently, it was assumed that brain functioning was fixed early in life. Over time, the only mental trajectory
was downhill, when we lose some of our cognitive abilities as a result of aging, strokes, or dementia.
The assumption of brain fixedness began to be questioned by the Spanish neuroanatomist Ramo
n y Cajal in the 1890s.
During the second half of the 20th century, research started to reveal that the brain is indeed ‘plastic’, that is, capable of re-
directing the location of a function (such as vision), as well as able to grow fresh neural matter and pathways that enhance
cognitive capacity.
Pioneering work was done in the 1960s by David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel (working with vision in young kittens) and Paul
Bach-y-Rita (demonstrating that the blind could, through sensory substitution, ‘see’ using their sense of touch). Another
important breakthrough came in the late 1990s with discovery that the adult brain has neural stem cells, enabling it to
generate new neurons. An important medical technology for understanding brain functioning and change over time is
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Structural MRIs produce anatomical images, while functional MRIs (fMRIs) chart brain
activity by measuring changes in blood flow when performing mental tasks.
Landmark research by Elizabeth Maguire and her colleagues (Maguire et al., 2000) demonstrated brain change through
cognitive activity in London's black-car taxi drivers. Those licensed to drive a taxi in London must first demonstrate ‘the
Knowledge’, meaning ability to find 320 routes, along with 25,000 streets and 20,000 landmarks or places of public interest e
without a map. The training process can take three or four years.
The brain area of relevance here is the hippocampus, which plays an important role in our physical navigation abilities,
particularly to simulate journeys for future travel. The posterior part of the hippocampus stores spatial representations of the
physical environment.
In their study, Maguire and her colleagues used structural MRIs to compare the brains of 16 male licensed London taxi
drivers with those of 50 males (control participants) who did not drive taxis. Results showed larger posterior hippocampi in
the taxi drivers' brains, suggesting neurological effects of navigational experience. Moreover, the amount of increased volume
correlated with amount of experience. A subsequent study (Maguire et al., 2006) used structural MRIs to compare the
hippocampi of 18 experienced London taxi drivers with 17 comparably seasoned London bus drivers. Although both groups
drove the streets of London, taxi drivers needed to chart each trip anew (drawing upon their navigational skills), while bus
drivers followed fixed routes. The MRI scans revealed more gray matter in the mid-posterior area of the taxi drivers’
hippocampi, compared with those of the bus drivers.

3.2. Cognitive maps, spatial navigation, and brain structure

Since the London taxi drivers were not using physical maps, what sort of mapping were they replying upon? Today we
speak of ‘cognitive maps’, a notion introduced by the psychologist Edward Tolman (1948).
Running a series of experiments in which rats needed to navigate mazes, Tolman concluded that the rats' successful
pathfinding could not be explained by a stimulus-behavioral model (the dominant psychological framework at the time) but
necessitated postulating what he called cognitive maps, that is, mental images the rats constructed of the space to be

29
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

traversed. Tolman argued his findings applied to humans as well. Today, the notion of cognitive maps as internal repre-
sentations of spatial environments is an essential component of psychologists’ explanatory toolkit.
While the fuller picture of how the brain enables us to move through space is complex (see Ekstrom et al., 2018 for more
discussion), we here briefly summarize the neurological components and navigational processes most germane to the studies
of spatial navigation we will be discussing. Current models of human navigation recognize three different navigational
strategies (see Ekstrom et al., 2018 for detailed analysis). The simplest strategy is ‘beaconing’, via which users follow
prominent landmarks, such as telephone poles, to go from point A to point B. But the second two, ‘egocentric’ and ‘allocentric’,
are most relevant for us.
Egocentric navigation (sometimes also known as stimulus-response or response strategies) relies on knowing when to
make left or right-hand turns. The user is the reference point (hence, ‘egocentric’). Egocentric navigation is commonly used
when traveling familiar routes. We know where to turn without needing to observe landmarks along the way. Neurologically,
egocentric navigation is located in an area of the brain called the caudate nucleus.
Allocentric navigation (sometimes called cognitive map or spatial strategies) is based on understanding relationships
between landmarks. Instead of simply knowing where to turn left or right, we map our surroundings by noticing, for
example, specific buildings, radio towers, or large trees. Neurologically, the cognitive mapping used in allocentric navi-
gation is located in the hippocampus. We use allocentric strategies to navigate unfamiliar territory or to identify alter-
native routes. Seasoned London taxi drivers, with “the Knowledge” of those 20,000 landmarks and public places, rely on
allocentric navigation.
Our understanding of the neurological locations of these two types of navigation was bolstered through the work of Iaria
et al. (2003), who confirmed differential use of the caudate nucleus and the hippocampus. Bohbot et al. (2007) demonstrated
that people preferring to use egocentric navigation had bigger caudate nuclei, while those preferring allocentric navigation
had larger hippocampi.
Now enter GPS. The typical turn-by-turn directions GPS provides are a technological version of egocentric navigation. So,
too, are GPS route maps, which draw a line from starting point to destination. In principle, a tool such as Google Maps displays
the broader landscape, including landmarks (think of allocentric navigation). However, in practice, we tend to disregard this
information in favor of focusing on the egocentric route.

3.3. Wayfaring with modern technology: what the data show

Is GPS affecting our ability to navigate through space on our own? Mounting evidence suggests yes. Qualitative research
has explored users’ perceptions regarding the effects of GPS on how they navigate. Quantitative studies have measured
navigational performance.
In a qualitative study, Leshed et al. (2008) interviewed drivers who used in-car GPS navigation systems, probing how they
programmed and then followed directions from the devices. The authors concluded that GPS reduces drivers’ engagement
with their environment, removing their perceived need to keep track of physical landmarks or to know where they are along
their route.
Quantitative studies confirm that using GPS can reduce people's ability to navigate spatially on their own.
Willis et al. (2009) compared spatial knowledge acquired from studying a tangible map versus while using GPS to
navigate a physical space. The setting was an outdoor area containing grid walkways and local landmarks such as
houses, a bench, and a post box. Map users studied a physical map before entering the space, while those in the GPS
condition learned the route by using GPS onsite. Those employing GPS were worse at estimating route distance (path
traversed) and Euclidean distance (shortest distance between starting point and designation) than those using the
physical map.
Two other studies charted the effects of GPS in navigating virtual city environments. Hejtma
nek et al. (2018) used eye-
tracking technology to document navigation. The first part of the experiment entailed performing 21 ‘there and back’ vir-
tual journeys in a cityscape populated with specific locations (such as a train station and church) and other features common
to cities (such as roads and a park). Participants could use a GPS-like device as much as they wished for the tasks. About
90 min later, participants filled in a blank map with all the names of locations and landmarks they remembered. The more
time participants used GPS to navigate, the less accurate their subsequent spatial knowledge.
Another study (Javadi et al., 2017; University College London, 2017) used fMRI scanners to map the brains of partic-
ipants navigating simulations of London's Soho region. In the first condition, participants navigated using their own
mental resources. Researchers found that the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex (an area of the brain involved in
decision-making and planning) both showed activity when participants entered new streets. The more the street options,
the more the neural activity. In the second condition, participants employed satnav (a navigation system using GPS
signals) for the tasks. When using satnav to navigate through complex junctions, the participants' hippocampi essentially
switched off.
In sum: GPS is fundamentally an egocentric form of wayfaring. Given brain plasticity, it seems probable that the more we
exercise the caudate nucleus (locus of egocentric navigation), the less we are likely to exercise the hippocampus (location of
allocentric e that is, cognitive map e navigation). Unfortunately, ignoring our hippocampus can lead to troubling
consequences.

30
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

3.4. Aging, cognitive decline, dementia

The normal aging process typically brings brain changes. ‘Senior moments’ e forgetting names of people or places e are
one manifestation. Another is how we navigate. As we age, the volume of gray matter in the hippocampus declines, along
with our allocentric (‘spatial’) navigation abilities (Sodums and Bohbot, 2020). Reduction in hippocampus volume correlates
with cognitive decline.
Ve
ronique Bohbot and her colleagues (Bohbot et al., 2012) have documented the dramatic differences across the lifespan in
spontaneous use of spatial navigational strategies (hippocampus-based, that is, allocentric), compared with response stra-
tegies (caudate-nucleus-based, that is, egocentric). Study participants ranging from 8 to 80 years old navigated a virtual maze.
Participants developed their own strategies, either memorizing relationships between landmarks (a hippocampus-
dependent spatial strategy) or memorizing left and right turns (a caudate nucleus response strategy). They then verbal-
ized their navigation process. Among children, 84% used spatial strategies, compared with 47% of young adults and 39% of
older adults. That is, older adults were less likely to use their hippocampus.
Decline with age in hippocampus volume is not inevitable. Konishi and Bohbot (2013) showed a correlation between use of
spontaneous spatial memory strategies and gray matter in the hippocampus, suggesting that older individuals who utilize
spatial strategies can increase their hippocampal gray matter and age more successfully. Lo €vde

n et al. (2012) demonstrated
that training on a cognitively-demanding spatial navigation task increased the volume of the hippocampus in both younger
and older men. West et al. (2017) found that by playing a 3-D video game, older adults increased gray matter in their hip-
pocampus. Such findings have implications both for normal cognitive aging and for people facing more severe issues.
We can distinguish three kinds of cognitive decline: normal aging, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's
disease. In all three, the hippocampus diminishes in size. With MCI and Alzheimer's, patients are increasingly likely to rely on
egocentric rather than allocentric navigation strategies (Parizkova et al., 2018). Not surprisingly, a common hallmark of
Alzheimer's is not knowing where you are.
Not everyone with mild cognitive impairment develops Alzheimer's. The medical challenge has been our inability to
predict which patients will progress to having the disease. Researchers (e.g. Lithfous et al., 2013) are exploring whether
testing of spatial navigational ability in those diagnosed with MCI will enable medical practitioners to intervene through
exercises strengthening the hippocampus.

4. Reading, memory, and cognitive maps

We turn now from the impact of digital technologies on memory and on navigation skills to their effect on reading. As we
shall see, memory and cognitive mapping are relevant when talking about reading in print versus digitally.
Researchers have been studying whether we read differently using print or digital devices. One group of studies has asked,
do we comprehend better with print reading or with digital. A second line of research has explored whether users perceive
they concentrate, learn, or remember better with print or digital. In parallel, we can ask, if there are differences (in
comprehension or perception), to what extent are they attributable to external factors such as physical properties of the
media and in what ways do differences result from the mental approach we take when reading (internal factors).

4.1. Comprehension and perception research

Earlier studies comparing reading in print versus digitally commonly indicated essentially no difference in comprehension
scores, even though participants often believed they did better with print (see Baron et al., 2017 for a literature summary).
However, more recent investigations have reported differences in comprehension, particularly when researchers asked more
nuanced questions.
Kaufman and Flanagan (2016) compared performance on a reading comprehension test containing both questions with
concrete answers and questions whose answers required abstract thinking or making inferences. While performance for
concrete answers was higher digitally, it was higher with print when abstractions or inferences were involved. Singer and
Alexander (2017) distinguished between test questions asking participants to identify the main idea (that is, the basic gist)
in a reading passage versus questions requiring greater detail about key points or other relevant information in the text.
Performance was comparable in both media for identifying the main idea, but better with print for remembering more
detailed information.
Several meta-analyses (Clinton, 2019; Delgado et al., 2018) have reviewed findings from a range of experimental studies
comparing comprehension with print versus digital texts. The Clinton analysis included 33 studies from 2008 to 2018, while
the Delgado review examined 54 studies from 2000 to 2017. Taken together, these were significant findings of the meta-
analyses:
- overall comprehension: better in print
- length of text: comprehension with longer texts better in print
- genre of text: comprehension with informational texts better in print
- time allocated for test: comprehension better in print when under time pressure
- year research conducted: advantage of print increased with more recent studies

31
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

This last finding is especially noteworthy, given users’ increased familiarity over the years with digital reading.
A separate line of research has focused on users’ perceptions, along with their reading habits and reasons for choosing one
medium over the other. One study (Baron et al., 2017) involved over 400 university students from the US, Japan, Germany,
Slovakia, and India. Participants completed a survey containing both quantitative and qualitative questions. Quantitative
questions included judgements about reading on the two media regarding cost, rereading, text length, multitasking, and
concentration. Qualitative questions asked what participants liked most and least about reading in print or digitally, and
provided opportunity for additional comments.
Here were the major quantitative findings. Although most questions were asked about reading both for schoolwork and
for pleasure, we focus on responses regarding academic reading:

- cost: If cost were the same, 87% would choose print.

- rereading: 58% were more likely to reread print, while 14% were more likely to reread digital text. 28% were equally likely to reread either.
- text length: With long texts, 86% preferred reading print.
- multitasking: 67% were likely to multitask while reading digitally, compared with 41% when reading print.
- concentration: 92% said they concentrated best when reading print.

In comments on what they liked most about reading in print, participants spoke about how they approached print versus
digital texts, and how much they felt they were retaining:

- “compared to reading in hardcopy, prone to skimming (unlike reading thoroughly) on a digital screen”
- “[when reading print] it takes me longer because I read more carefully”
- “reading in hardcopy makes me focus more on what I am reading”
- “[when reading print] I feel like I understand it more”

A second cross-national study of reader perceptions (Mizrachi et al., 2018) yielded similar results. Surveying over 10,000
university students in 21 countries, the researchers found that for academic reading, the majority of participants reported
they

- prefer to read academic materials in print (78%)

- prefer print for longer texts (73%)
- remember information better with print (72%)
- focus better with print (82%)

Despite such results from comprehension experiments and perception studies, digital textbooks are increasingly sup-
planting print in educational settings from lower school through university. It is therefore not surprising that some students
now assume comprehension when reading digitally (at least in test environments) is on par with or superior to print
comprehension.
Psychologists speak of ‘calibration’ to describe the relationship between users' perceptions of how well they perform on a
task versus actual performance. Recent studies of calibration when reading onscreen or in print revealed that while users
perceived better comprehension performance with digital reading, they actually scored better with print (Golan et al., 2018;
Singer and Alexander, 2017). Note that these experiments involved reading short passages in controlled testing situations, not
students' assessments about concentration or learning more generally.

4.2. External factors

We move now to whether external factors (including physical properties of print and how we manipulate digital text) or
internal factors (the mindset with which we approach print versus digital text) contribute to differences in reading
comprehension and memory in the two media. Researchers (e.g. Mangen and Schilhab, 2012; Mangen and Velay, 2010) have
described the role of physical aspects of books in reading: books' linear dimensions, their heft, how we hold them and turn
pages. Baron et al. (2017) found many participants commenting that what they liked most about reading in print was such
physical properties (e.g. ‘‘holding the medium right in my hands” or ‘‘charm of actually turning pages”).
Complementing these perceptual studies are experimental findings indicating that the layout of print aids readers in
remembering what they read and where in the text they read it. Mangen et al. (2019) had 50 participants read a 28-page
mystery story, either on a Kindle or in a print dummy pocket book. Overall reading time and recall were equivalent in
both conditions. However, those using print were better able to locate where in the text an event took place and to reconstruct
the plot sequence. The researchers concluded that kinesthetic information from physically moving through a book con-
tributes to readers’ understanding and memory.
While digital texts lack the physical properties of print, several digital navigation tools serve relevant external functions.
Consider the search (or ‘FIND’) function, used to seek out specific information, rather than reading the text linearly to locate
what we are looking for. Availability of such search tools reduces not only the need but the motivation to read larger portions
of text.

32
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

A second external aspect of digital reading is use of scrolling versus paging. Since many digital documents fill more than
one screen-worth, readers generally have the choice of scrolling or paging down to subsequent text. Several studies (e.g.
Proaps and Bliss, 2014; W€ astlund, 2007) have measured comprehension when participants are asked to read a digital
document either by scrolling or by using a page-down function. Scrolling results in lower comprehension, suggesting it places
greater cognitive demands on readers than paging. On analogy with a printed page, a stable screen-worth of text affords
readers a temporary physical frame with grounding reference points (such as ‘at the top’, ‘mid-page’, ‘near the bottom’).
A third external aspect in digital reading is hyperlinks. While offering potentially valuable related information, hyperlinks
can derail the reader's mental continuity. In a review of how users navigate online and how much they comprehend when
following hyperlinks, DeStefano and LeFevre (2007) concluded that accessing hyperlinks increased readers' cognitive load,
often resulting in poorer performance because using hyperlink navigation exceeds some users' working memory capacity.

4.3. Internal factors

What role might our internal mindset play in approaching a digital text? That is, do the mental attitudes we bring to
reading onscreen contribute to comprehension differences between print and digital reading?
Psychologists speak of ‘metacognition’ in referring to thinking (consciously or not) about your own thought processes
when engaged in a cognitive activity. Studies indicate that users' mindset, rather than the technology itself, is at least partially
responsible for shaping reading outcomes. Ackerman and Goldsmith (2011) asked participants to read print or digital texts
either given a fixed amount of reading time or when they could choose how long to spend (self-regulation). Performance was
equivalent under the fixed time condition, but under self-regulation, participants read the digital text more quickly and had
lower comprehension scores than with print. Similarly, Singer Trakhman et al. (2019) found that undergraduates read more
quickly and scored worse on a comprehension test when using a computer screen than with print.
Such experimental results suggest readers perceive digital reading as a technology allowing them to proceed more quickly
than with printed text. Qualitative data (Baron et al., 2017) support this analysis. In open-ended responses regarding likes and
dislikes about digital versus print reading, several participants said it takes longer to read the same text in print. One noted the
reason was because she reads print more carefully.
Computers with internet connections are tailor-made for short reads, multitasking, and jumping between sites. Smart-
phones and tablets continually ping us with news feed updates or incoming texts. When we attempt to settle down for
mindful, uninterrupted reading of linear text on devices that inherently encourage speed and distraction, it is hardly sur-
prising to find it difficult to shift mindsets.
Several researchers (e.g. Delgado et al., 2018) suggest that poorer comprehension when reading digitally is evidence for a
‘shallowing hypothesis’ (Annisette and Lafreniere, 2017), meaning that when reading on a digital device, people expend less
mental effort than when reading print. A major driver of shallow reading is the vast amounts of time especially young people
are spending on digital social media, which require relatively low mental effort. Wolf (2011) voices concern that the large
amount of quick, shallow reading people are doing online undermines engagement with deeper, analytical thinking.

4.4. Digital reading and cognitive maps

Both external and internal factors are important in explaining how we read in digital versus print formats. We already
hinted at the role of textual layout and navigation in what we remember when reading. We can now link this analysis to
earlier discussion of GPS and cognitive maps, since cognitive maps are relevant not only for navigating physical space but for
navigating texts.
The idea of cognitively mapping what we read is hardly new. Explicit pedagogical procedures for cognitive mapping of
texts date back to late antiquity and the middle ages in the west. Those seeking to memorialize an extended text were trained
to construct ‘memory palaces’ with ‘rooms’ in which mentally to store components of the work (Carruthers, 1990).
Researchers have long commented that readers commonly recall where on a printed page they have seen particular in-
formation (e.g. Zechmeister and McKillip, 1972). Ability to mentally map where in a text information appears also seems to
correlate with comprehension. Cataldo and Oakhill (2000) asked 5th grade children e half with good reading comprehension
skills and half with poor skills e to read a 4-page text and then locate where in the text specific information was located.
Those with good comprehension skills were more efficient in locating the information and evidenced qualitatively different
search strategies from those with poorer comprehension skills.
With the coming of age of digital reading, researchers have investigated use of cognitive maps with print versus onscreen
texts. Does digital reading make it more difficult to construct a cognitive map, which could be valuable for comprehension
and memory? We have already suggested how digital navigation tools such as search, scrolling, and hyperlinks can discourage
spatial textual wayfaring.
Of course, reading digitally does not preclude any cognitive mapping of a text. Consider work by Payne and Reader (2006),
who studied how undergraduates searched for information from multiple online sources dealing with the same topic. Par-
ticipants spontaneously constructed ‘structure maps’, enabling them to remember the location of information both within
and across documents. Recall findings by Sparrow et al. (2011) that people remember their path for locating a piece of in-
formation online, even when not remembering the information itself.

33
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

Several researchers (Li et al., 2013; Liesaputra and Witten, 2012) have proposed compensatory strategies for improving
cognitive mapping with digital texts, including analog page-turning and creation of visual location cues. More recently, Hou
et al. (2017) compared reading a comic book in three conditions e paper, a replica digital version, and a digital version that
broke up the pages’ structure (going panel-by-panel rather than page-by-page). Comprehension on both the paper and
normal digital layout were superior to the disjointed digital version. The researchers concluded that the opportunity to
construct a cognitive map of the pages, not the medium itself, explained the comprehension results.
Return to what we learned about egocentric (self-based) versus allocentric (landmark-based) navigation. The two rely on
different notions of mapping and activate distinct parts of the brain. Think now about navigating physical print, especially
books. Such factors as book size, heft, and page layout encourage creation of allocentric cognitive maps. What about navi-
gating text onscreen? Findings by Sparrow et al. (2011) suggest users create point-to-point search maps (egocentric), which
makes sense when moving between online sites. The FIND function is a quintessential example of point-to-point navigation
(from search term to destination). Scrolling, unlike page turning, affords no opportunity for creating a cognitive map of the
text. And hyperlinks can also weaken the chances users are formulating cognitive maps of their reading.
Cognitive mapping used for navigating physical space directly correlates with use of the hippocampus, and a strong
hippocampus is especially important as we age. We have seen that print reading is more likely to encourage allocentric
cognitive mapping, while digital reading e to the extent it encourages mapping e relies more heavily on egocentric way-
faring. We also have documented that comprehension is often better when reading print. Mangen et al.’s research (2019)
indicates that memory for where in a story an event occurs and in what order events unfold is better when reading print.
We do not know if there are demonstrable neurological correlates to these differences in navigating print versus onscreen
reading. An obvious methodological challenge is that in an fMRI scanner, participants cannot hold a physical book but can
only see text projected on a screen. We are, however, able to observe empirical reading practices. To begin exploring such
practices, think about ‘reading’ versus ‘using’ a book.

4.5. ‘Reading’ versus ‘using’ a book

How often do we read books all the way through? The likelihood is higher for fiction than non-fiction, though for cen-
turies, people have intentionally read selectively or begun but never finished books of all types (Price, 2019).
Chapter divisions, page numbers, tables of contents, and indexes facilitate egocentric navigation in print books, enabling
us to efficiently locate what we are seeking. But once we arrive, we often find ourselves reading surrounding text. We may be
looking for Chapter 10, but when thumbing our way there, discover a chapter that seems even more interesting. When using a
traditional print index, we commonly need to peruse much of a page to find our intended reference, and in the process,
establish context for better understanding the passage we initially sought.
Compare reading digitally, especially non-fiction works we consult. Do we approach them the same way as we would
print? Consider these experiences:

- You are interested in an edited book of articles but discover your library only has the electronic version. You check out the book (digitally), finding that
because of file formatting, you are only able to access one chapter at a time. That is, you cannot naturally browse through the book, easily navigating
across sections. Looking at additional chapters entails more time and effort, reducing your motivation to do so.
- You need to check a quotation for an article you are writing. You access the library's digital copy of the relevant work, input your search words, confirm
the reference, and exit. You are less likely to linger to think about the context of the quotation or the larger work of which it is part than if you were
sitting with the printed text.

By virtue of highly convenient search tools, digital works encourage us to use books, rather than read them. Such behavior
is an egocentric form of textual navigation. It discourages deeper, contemplative reading, which relies on grasping the fuller
work and pausing to reflect upon and analyze it. To the extent we increasingly rely on digital formats for accessing written
text, we heighten the probability that ‘reading’, in the traditional sense of engaging with the broader text and trying to make
semantic e and spatial e sense of it, will be edged out by point-to-point ‘use’ navigation.

5. What do we want to know?

This article has considered three domains in which digital technologies potentially affect learning, knowing, and
remembering. Our discussion has focused on the affordances of digital versus physical technologies, as well as research
regarding how people behave when using these technologies. But there is another essential dimension to this discussion:
education.
Given the explosive growth of digital technologies, what do we want people to know on their own? Parents, teachers, and
educational administrators agree they desire that young people gain knowledge. But by learning what? To what extent should
the pedagogical process entail remembering what you learned? And how much of a role should reading play?
Through much of history, pedagogy emphasized memorization. The progressive education movement in the early 20th
century (Howlett, 2013) argued instead for developing children's creative thinking, a goal that lives on today with ubiquitous
talk about teaching critical thinking (Moore and Parker, 2014). Less clear is how these skills are to be obtained and what an
appropriate mix might be of ‘knowledge on demand’ (by looking things up) versus ‘knowledge you hold in your head’.

34
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

Historically, reading has been a vital source of knowledge. But in some places, the amount people are reading is dimin-
ishing. Consider these data from the US:

- The average time reading for pleasure spent by older teenagers and adults dropped from 23 min per day in 2005 to 15 min in 2018 (Ingraham, 2019). At
the same time, television viewing grew by 20 min daily.
- Among 12th grade high school students, only one-third had read a book for pleasure in the past year, a steep decline from 1976, when closer to 90%
reported reading at least one book for pleasure (Twenge et al., 2018).
- In 2019, US teenagers averaged 7 h and 22 min daily of screen time e not including work for school assignments. Of this, 39% was spent using social
media, compared with 2% for eReading (Rideout and Robb, 2019).
- Seniors in college devote an average of about 15 h per week preparing for class (including “studying, reading, writing, doing homework or lab work,
analyzing data, rehearsing, and other academic activities”), of which barely 7 h are spent on assigned reading (NSSE, 2018).
- Interest in reading-intensive programs of study is declining. The percent of college graduates majoring in English literature dropped from more than
7% in 1970 to less than 3% in 2014 (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2016), and the number of history majors dropped 34% between 2011 and
2017 e now roughly 5% of college degrees granted compared with 12% in 1971 (Flaherty, 2018).

Sustained reading is on the decline, including in educational contexts. Historical data reveal that the drop predates reliance
on digital media, though as Twenge et al. (2018) demonstrate, the rise of these technologies plays an ever larger role in this
trend. Another factor is the assignments teachers make. Research indicates a reduction in both the amount and complexity of
undergraduate reading at least some faculty are assigning (Baron and Mangen, 2021). At the same time, audio or video as-
signments (e.g. podcasts, TED Talks) are increasingly being substituted for text-based materials (Baron and Mangen, 2021).
While audio and video materials can be educationally valuable, we know relatively little about the effectiveness of audio or
visual formats for learning, in comparison with text (see Baron, 2021: Chapter 7 for research details).

6. Charting a path forward

We understand a considerable amount regarding how the internet affects motivations to remember, how GPS reshapes in-
centives to construct spatial cognitive maps, and how reading onscreen differs from reading print. Our next step must be to bring
these findings to bear on our thinking about cognitive goals, both in structured education and in our everyday lives as an informed
public. Conceptualizing a concrete framework is no small feat, and we cannot undertake it here. However, building on the research
we have explored, we can illustrate the kinds of issues, strategies, and challenges we need to consider moving forward.

6.1. Memory

Of the three domain we have discussed, memory skills will likely be the most challenging. On the one hand, contemporary
educational practice has downplayed the role of memory in learning. On the other, digital technologies e from pocket cal-
culators to spellcheck to search engines e have reduced the incentive to remember empirical information. We might debate
the virtues of knowing the multiplication tables or standardized spelling, or even remembering telephone numbers of our
closest friends and relatives. However, the consequences hit home when the technology fails us e when we lose our mobile
phone (which we forgot to back up) or when the power is out.
A question we should ask our students e and ourselves e is, what do we know when the internet is down? Is what we are
left with ample for our needs? Under what circumstances? And for how long? These questions have no easy answers, but we
need to begin posing them.

6.2. Navigation

The profusion of GPS devices undermines our incentive to move through physical space using hippocampus-based
strategies. However, given neurological changes with normal aging, which are magnified with cognitive impairment, the
consequences of not exercising our hippocampus are palpable. In the words of Ve
ronique Bohbot, “Society is geared in many
ways toward shrinking the hippocampus. In the next twenty years, I think we're going to see dementia occurring earlier and
earlier” (Hutchinson, 2009).
Research has demonstrated that targeted cognitive exercises can help protect the hippocampus against such decline
€vde
(Lo
n et al., 2012; West et al., 2017). Work by Brügger et al. (2019) looks to developing ‘smarter’ automatic navigation
systems that enable users to still increase their spatial knowledge. Public awareness of the cognitive challenge of GPS, along
with practical remedies, can inform both educational and public strategies.

6.3. Reading

One piece of the reading puzzle will be recognizing when to choose digital or print (Singer Trakhman et al., 2019). A second
will be maximizing the quality of onscreen reading.
Several experiments have shown students can improve their digital reading performance when primed with study
strategies. Lauterman and Ackerman (2014) demonstrated that techniques such as practice tests or student-generated
keywords can reduce screen inferiority. Kaufman and Flanagan (2016) found that by priming study participants with a
task involving abstract thinking, performance when reading digitally improved on abstract questions.

35
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

We can also draw upon familiar ‘best practices’ for reading print, along with advice for avoiding known digital pitfalls.
Pointers include setting reading goals, eschewing multitasking, reading slowly enough to think about the text, and doing
written annotations or constructing concept maps. (For detailed discussion of strategies, see Baron, 2021).
Learning, knowing, and remembering are essential human accomplishments. Our challenge will be to harness digital
technologies to enhance our cognitive activities without allowing technologies to subvert our brains.

Declaration of competing interest

No conflict of interest.

References

Ackerman, R., Goldsmith, M., 2011. Metacognitive regulation on text learning: on screen versus on paper. J. Exp. Psychol. 17 (1), 18e32.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2016. Humanities Indicators. https://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i¼53. (Accessed 3
May 2020).
Annisette, L.E., Lafreniere, K.D., 2017. Social media, texting, and personality: a test of the shallowing hypothesis. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 115, 154e158.
Baron, N.S., 2021. How We Read Now: Strategic Choices for Print, Screen, and Audio. OUP, New York.
Baron, N.S., Calixte, R.M., Havewala, M., 2017. The persistence of print among university students: an exploratory study. Telematics Inf. 34, 590e604.
Baron, N.S., Mangen, A., 2021. Doing the reading: the decline of long longform in higher education. Poet. Today. In Press.
Bohbot, V.M., Lerch, J., Thorndycraft, B., Iaria, G., Zijdenbos, A.P., 2007. Gray matter differences correlate with spontaneous strategies in a human virtual
navigation task. J. Neurosci. 27 (38), 10078e10083.
Bohbot, V.M., McKenzie, S., Konishi, K., Fouquet, C., Kurdi, V., Schachar, R., Boivin, M., Robaey, P., 2012. Virtual navigation strategies from childhood to
senescence: evidence of changes across the life span. Front. Aging Neurosci. 4, 28.
Brügger, A., Richter, K.-F., Fabrikant, S.I., 2019. How does navigation system behavior influence human behavior? Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 4 (5).
Carruthers, M., 1990. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. CUP, Cambridge.
Cataldo, M.G., Oakhill, J., 2000. Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? J. Educ. Psychol. 92 (4), 791e799.
Clinton, V., 2019. Reading from paper compared to screens: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Res. Read. 42 (2), 288e325.
Costandi, M., 2016. Neuroplasticity. MIT, Cambridge.
Dekker, R., Engbersen, G., Klaver, J., Vonk, H., 2018. Smart refugees: how Syrian asylum migrants use social media information in migration decision-making.
Soc. Media þ Soc. 4 (1), 1e11.
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., Salmero
n, L., 2018. Don't throw away your printed books: a meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on
comprehension. Educ. Res. Rev. 25, 23e38.
DeStefano, D., LeFevre, J.-A., 2007. Cognitive load in hypertext reading: a review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23 (3), 1616e1641.
Ekstrom, A.D., Spiers, H.J., Bohbot, V.D., Rosenbaum, R.S., 2018. Human Spatial Navigation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Fisher, M., Goddu, M.K., Keil, F.C., 2015. Searching for explanations: how the internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144 (3),
674e687.
Flaherty, C., 2018. New Analysis of History-Major Data Says the Field Is at a ‘new low.’ Can it Be Saved? Inside HigherEd. November 27, 2018. https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/27/new-analysis-history-major-data-says-field-new-low-can-it-be-saved. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Golan, D.D., Barzillai, M., Katzir, T., 2018. The effect of presentation mode on children's reading preferences, performance, and evaluations. Comput. Educ.
126, 346e358.
Henkel, L.A., 2014. Point-and-shoot memories: the influence of taking photos on memory for a museum tour. Psychol. Sci. 25 (2), 396e402.
Hejtm
anek, L., Oravcova
, I., Motýl, J., Hora


, I., 2018. Spatial knowledge impairment after GPS guided navigation: eye-tracking study in a
cek, J., Fajnerova
virtual town. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 116, 15e24.
Hou, J., Rashid, J., Lee, K.M., 2017. Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Comput. Hum. Behav. 67, 84e94.
Howlett, J., 2013. Progressive Education: A Critical Introduction. Bloomsbury Academic, London.
Hutchinson, A., 2009. Global impositioning systems. Walrus. November 12, 2009. https://thewalrus.ca/global-impositioning-systems/. (Accessed 3 May
2020).
Iaria, G., Petrides, M., Dagher, A., Pike, B., Bohbot, V.D., 2003. Cognitive strategies dependent on the hippocampus and caudate nucleus in human navigation:
variability and change with practice. J. Neurosci. 23 (13), 5945e5952.
Ingraham, C., 2019. Screen time is rising, reading is falling, and it's not young people's fault. Wash. Post. June 21, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
business/2019/06/21/screen-time-is-rising-reading-is-falling-its-not-young-peoples-fault/. (Accessed 15 May 2020).
Javadi, A.-H., Emo, B., Howard, L.R., Zisch, F.E., Yu, Y., Knight, R., Pinelo Silva, J., Spiers, H.J., 2017. Hippocampal and prefrontal processing of network topology
to simulate the future. Nat. Commun. 8, 14652.
Kaspersky Lab, 2015a. The Rise and Impact of Digital Amnesia. Why We Need to Protect what We Can No Longer Remember [European data]. BBC News.
June 19, 2015. [No longer available online. For a brief summary of results, see S. Coughlin (October 7, 2015). Digital dependence ‘eroding human
memory’. https://www.bbc.com/news/education-34454264. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Kaspersky Lab, 2015b. The Rise and Impact of Digital Amnesia. Why We Need to Protect what We Can No Longer Remember [US data]. June 2015. https://
media.kasperskycontenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/100/2017/03/10084613/Digital-Amnesia-Report.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Kaspersky Lab, 2016. From Digital Amnesia to the Augmented Mind. August 17, 2016. http://media.kaspersky.com/pdf/Kaspersky-Digital-Amnesia-
Evolution-report-17-08-16.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Kaufman, G., Flanagan, M., 2016. High-low split: divergent cognitive construal levels triggered by digital and non-digital platforms. In: CHI '16 Proceedings
of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, San Jose, pp. 2773e2777.
Konishi, K., Bohbot, V.M., 2013. Spatial navigation strategies correlate with gray matter in the hippocampus of healthy older adults tested in a virtual maze.
Front. Aging Neurosci. 5, 1.
Lauterman, T., Ackerman, R., 2014. Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 455e463.
Leshed, G., Velden, T., Rieger, O., Kot, B., Sengers, P., 2008. In-car GPS navigation: engagement with and disengagement from the environment. In: CHI '08
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Florence, pp. 1675e1684.
Li, L.-Y., Chen, G.-D., Yang, S.-J., 2013. Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation. Comput. Educ. 60, 32e39.
Liesaputra, V., Witten, I.H., 2012. Realistic electronic books. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70, 588e610.
Lithfous, S., Dufour, A., Despre
s, O., 2013. Spatial navigation in normal aging and the prodromal stage of Alzheimer's disease: insights from imaging and
behavioral studies. Ageing Res. Rev. 12, 201e213.
€ vde
Lo
n, M., Schaefer, S., Noack, H., Bodammer, N.C., Kühn, S., Heinze, H.-J., Düzel, E., B€ ackman, L., Lindenberger, U., 2012. Spatial navigation training protects
the hippocampus against age-related changes during early and late adulthood. Neurobiol. Aging 33 (3), 620.e9e620.e22.
Maguire, E.A., Gadian, D.G., Johnsrude, I.S., Good, C.D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R.S.J., Frith, C.D., 2000. Navigation-related structural change in the
hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 97 (8), 4398e4403.

36
N.S. Baron Journal of Pragmatics 175 (2021) 27e37

Maguire, E.A., Woollett, K., Spiers, H.J., 2006. London taxi drivers and bus drivers: a structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis. Hippocampus 16 (12),
1091e1101.
Mangen, A., Olivier, G., 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. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038/full. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Mangen, A., Schilhab, T., 2012. An embodied view of reading: theoretical considerations, empirical findings, and educational implications. In: Matre, S.,
Skaftung, A. (Eds.), Skriv! Les! Akademika, Trondheim, pp. 285e300.
Mangen, A., Velay, J.-L., 2010. Digitizing literacy: reflections on the haptics of writing. In: Zadeh, M.H. (Ed.), Advances in Haptics. IntechOpen, London, pp.
385e401.
Milner, G., 2016. Pinpoint: How GPS Is Changing Technology, Culture, and Our Minds. W.W. Norton & Co, New York.
Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A.M., Kurbanoglu, S., Boustany, J., 2018. Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: a
comparative survey analysis. PloS One 13 (5). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id¼10.1371/journal.pone.0197444. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Moore, B.N., Parker, R., 2014. Critical Thinking, eleventh ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
NSSE, 2018. National Survey of Student Engagement, 2018, Summary Tables, Questions 15 and 16. http://nsse.indiana.edu/2018_institutional_report/pdf/
Means/Mean%20-%20SR%20by%20Carn.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Parizkova, M., Lerch, O., Moffat, S.D., Andel, R., Mazancova, A.F., Nedelska, Z., Vyhnalek, M., Hort, J., Laczo
, J., 2018. The effect of Alzheimer's disease on spatial
navigation strategies. Neurobiol. Aging 64, 107e115.
Payne, S.J., Reader, W.R., 2006. Constructing structure maps of multiple on-line texts. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64, 461e474.
Price, L., 2019. What We Talk about when We Talk about Books. Basic Books, New York.
Proaps, A.B., Bliss, J.P., 2014. The effects of text presentation format on reading comprehension and video game performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 36,
41e47.
Rideout, V.J., Robb, M.B., 2019. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens. Common Sense Media, San Francisco. https://www.
commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/2019-census-8-to-18-full-report-updated.pdf. (Accessed 15 May 2020).
Singer, L.M., Alexander, P.A., 2017. Reading across mediums: effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. J. Exp. Educ. 85 (1),
155e172.
Singer Trakhman, L.M., Alexander, P.A., Berkowitz, L.E., 2019. Effects of processing time on comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. J.
Exp. Educ. 87 (1), 101e115.
Soares, J.S., Storm, B.C., 2018. Forget in a flash: a further investigation of the photo-taking-impairment effect. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 7 (1), 154e160.
Sodums, D.J., Bohbot, V.D., 2020. Negative correlation between grey matter in the hippocampus and caudate nucleus in healthy aging. Hippocampus 30 (8),
892e908.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., Wegner, D.M., 2011. Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science 333 (6043),
776e778.
Storm, B.C., Stone, S.M., Benjamin, A.S., 2017. Using the internet to access information inflates future use of the internet to access other information. Memory
25 (6), 717e723.
Tamir, D.I., Templeton, E.M., Ward, A.F., Zaki, J., 2018. Media usage diminishes memory for experiences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76, 161e168.
Tolman, E.C., 1948. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol. Rev. 55 (4), 189e208.
Twenge, J.M., Martin, G.N., Spitzberg, B.H., 2018. Trends in U.S. adolescents' media use, 1976-2016: the rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near)
demise of print. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 8 (4), 329e345. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/ppm-ppm0000203.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
University College London, 2017. Satnavs 'switch off' Parts of the Brain: Using a Satnav to Get to Your Destination 'switches off' Parts of the Brain that Would
Otherwise Be Used to Simulate Different Routes. ScienceDaily. March 21, 2017. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170321122526.htm.
(Accessed 12 May 2020).
W€astlund, E., 2007. Experimental Studies of Human-Computer Interaction: Working Memory and Mental Workload in Complex Cognition. Department of
Psychology, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg.
Wegner, D.M., 1986. Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen, B., Goethals, G.R. (Eds.), Theories of Group Behavior.
Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 185e208.
West, G.L., Zendel, B.R., Konishi, K., Benady-Chorney, J., Bohbot, V.D., Peretz, I., Belleville, S., 2017. Playing Super Mario 64 increases hippocampal grey matter
in older adults. PloS One 12 (12). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id¼10.1371/journal.pone.0187779. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
€ lscher, C., Wilbertz, G., Li, C., 2009. A comparison of spatial knowledge acquisition with maps and mobile maps. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.
Willis, K.S., Ho
33, 100e110.
Wolf, M., 2011. Will the Speed of Online Reading Deplete Our Analytic Thought? Guardian. August 14, 2011. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/
2011/aug/14/marshall-mcluhan-analytic-thought. (Accessed 3 May 2020).
Zechmeister, E.B., McKillip, J., 1972. Recall of place on the page. J. Educ. 63 (5), 446e453.

Naomi S. Baron is Professor Emerita of Linguistics at American University in Washington, DC. Her research focuses on the impact of technology on language,
learning, and social interaction. She is a former Guggenheim Fellow, Fulbright Fellow, Visiting Scholar at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences, and Visiting Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Among her books are Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile
World and Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. Her newest book is How We Read Now: Strategic Choices for Print, Screen, and Audio.

37