you managed to gather with all the research you cited minus the blog post, less than 100 participants. if you think this is enough to conclude anything i may warn you are tripping balls

i suggest you do some read, specially of effect sizes found in many studies showing "better performance" (minuscule effect size). there's a plethora of political things you'll ignore by thinking books are better. i gathered you some stuff (there are more than 200,000 people studied on the links i'm sending to you) and i truly hope you don't try to counter-argument by pointing some meta-analysis i linked concluding the analog is better. they admit the effect is minimal to negligent and if you actually consider studies done on text that user doesn't have to "scroll" but rather advance the page with a tap/pgDN and the user don't have their social media hooked on their device (muted or absent), there literally NO EVEDIENCE of any difference between paper and digital learning

[0] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-16892-001

[1] https://futureofreading.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0...

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10606230/

[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13843-8

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277250302...