“Deep reading” —as opposed to the often superficial reading we do on the Web —is an endangered practice, one we ought to take steps to preserve as we would a historic building or a significant work of art. Its disappearance would jeopardize(危及) the intellectual and emotional development of generations growing up online, as well as the preservation of a critical part of our culture: the novels, poems and other kinds of literature that can be appreciated only by readers whose brains, quite literally, have been trained to understand them.

Recent research in cognitive science and psychology has demonstrated that deep reading —slow, immersive, rich in sensory detail and emotional and moral complexity—is a distinctive experience, different in kind from the mere decoding of words. Although deep reading does not, strictly speaking, require a conventional book, the built-in limits of the printed page are uniquely helpful to the deep reading experience. A book’s lack of hyperlinks(超链接), for example, frees the reader from making decisions —Should I click on this link or not? —allowing her to remain fully immersed in the narrative.

That immersion is supported by the way the brain handles language rich in detail, indirect reference and figures of speech: by creating a mental representation that draws on the same brain regions that would be active if the scene were unfolding in real life. The emotional situations and moral dilemmas that are the stuff of literature are also vigorous exercise for the brain, propelling us inside the heads of fictional characters and even, studies suggest, increasing our real-life capacity for empathy (认同).

None of this is likely to happen when we’re browsing through a website. Although we call the activity by the same name, the deep reading of books and the information-driven reading we do on the Web are very different, both in the experience they produce and in the capacities they develop. A growing body of evidence suggests that online reading may be less engaging and less satisfying, even for the “digital natives” to whom it is so familiar. Last month, for example,   Britain’s National Literacy Trust released the results of a study of 34,910 young people aged 8 to 16. Researchers reported that 39% of children and teens read daily using electronic devices, but only 28% read printed materials every day. Those who read only onscreen were three times less likely to say they enjoy reading very much and a third less likely to have a favorite book. The study also found that young people who read daily only onscreen were nearly two times less likely to be above-average readers than those who read daily in print or both in print and onscreen.

Reading is thought to be a kind of conversation between the reader and the text. The reader puts questions, as it were, to the text and get answers. In the light of these he put further questions, and so on.

For most of the time this “conversation” goes on below the level of consciousness. At times, however, we become aware of it. This is usually when we are running into difficulties, when mismatch is occurring between expectations and meaning. When successful matching is being experienced our questioning of the text continues at the unconscious level.

Different people converse with the text differently. Some stay very close to the words on the page; others take off imaginatively from words, interpreting, criticizing, analyzing and examining. The former represents a kind of comprehension that is written in the text, while the latter represents higher levels of comprehension. The balance between these is important, especially for advanced readers.

There is another conversation that from our point of view is important, and that has not to do with what is read but with how it is read. We call this a “process” conversation as opposed to a “content” conversation. It is concerned not with meaning but with the strategies we employ in reading. If we are skilled readers, our ability to hold a content conversation with a text is usually pretty well developed. Not so our ability to hold a process conversation. It is just this kind of conversation that is of importance when we are seeking to develop our reading to meet the new demands being placed upon us by studying at a higher level.

Have you ever found picking out the face of a friend in a group photo is sometimes hard, especially when everyone crowds together? In the same way, it can also be hard to read a passage of text when the letters are too close together. In fact, a new study shows that spacing the letters farther apart can help anyone read faster, and possibly understand more.

Dyslexia is a common reading disorder. Crowded text was especially difficult for people with dyslexia to read. So researchers wanted to see if increasing the spacing between letters would help.

Steven Stagg, a scientist, studies how people think and learn. His team recruited 59 students between 11 and 15 years old, thirty-two of whom had dyslexia. While the researchers recorded them, each student read two passages out loud. One passage was in its original format. In the other, there was an increase of 2.5 points in the spacing between the litters. The recording allowed the scientists to measure their reading speed and count any mistakes, such as skipped words.

People with dyslexia often employ aids to help them read, such as colored overlays (覆盖物). This time they are offered by the researchers. Those colored overlays didn’t help either group of kids. However, kids with dyslexia read the wider-spaced text 13 percent faster than the text with original spacing. These kids also made fewer mistakes. Students without dyslexia read faster, too, although only by 5 percent.

This is very good news. It means teachers and publishers can print material with extra spacing between litters. Readers with dyslexia won’t feel singled out by having to use special aids for reading. An organization called Readability Matters is working on these issues. The group is trying to get tech companies to make changes that should make reading easier.

Stagg says, “Some methods have shown mixed results, but Letter spacing seems to be the one thing that everyone is finding works.”