I notice how differently I respond to different presentations of information. It's one thing to watch someone, a little different to listen, and quite another to read.
For some reason, when you watch a lecture, it feels less serious. Sure, someone is telling you something, as if they're telling you stories, pontificating about life. Even if you understand that they're talking about something important, it still feels somewhat superficial.
If you remove the image and leave only the voice, you can concentrate a little more on the meaning of what's being said. Especially if you speed it up twice as fast, so you can't get distracted, otherwise you'll miss something. Not everything has time to settle in the mind, much less be remembered, but at least attention doesn't wander.
If we leave only the text, the perception is even more concentrated. Unless this applies to long descriptive passages, as happens in books, where a couple of pages tell about nature and the weather, rather than the essence of what's happening.
It turns out that a single, concentrated thought is better perceived, which requires less or no filtering.
Perhaps the brain is too lazy to consider the full picture each time, especially if there are already pieces of assembled neural networks of different concepts, and only one new connection needs to be formed.
Seems more effective.
On the other hand, there's a contradiction here: it's easier for us to perceive information in a more natural form, in communication with other people, embellished with sauces of emotions, sensations, etc. But if you notice empty space in the text, perception immediately decreases. I wonder if it's possible to teach with such precise thoughts, or should I expect that 80% of the information will be forgotten anyway?