Disclaimer: Contains unverified ideas and might contain errors. Do not take as facts.
The Sensing function manages raw data, while the iNtuitive function starts to evaluate, interprete and extrapolate.
The preferred data format for Si is text: all relevant data is packed into standardized variables (words) in a linear arrangement. It gives Ne a solid base to operate on.
The preferred data format for Se is experience, or at the very least pictures: all data can be seen in its entirety, parallel, unsorted and without preselection. That gives Ni a wealth of information among which it can freely spin connections and which it can sort according to its own internal system.
Now this might lead to the assumption that people who use Si/Ne might prefer books and Se/Ni-users might prefer movies, but it doesn't work as simple as that. Preferences are probably totally up to the individual person. The tendency I see in the few people around me of which I know the type even seems to suggest an opposite relation.
While reading a book, a Se/Ni-person uses first Se to read the data (that is in a less than ideal form for Se), and then Ni to connect the incomplete (pre-selected) data points to a world model that can be given back to Se. Both functions are automatically busy.
This is either seen as a fun and rewarding experience, or as work.
A Si/Ne-person, on the other hand, doesn't even need to use iNtuition to get the data into the right form: It's already perfect for Si to use. Reading could be seen as boring, because Ne has no job to do - or Ne could be used to think of possible future developments of the story which are then verified. My guess is Si/Ne-users might be more prone to trying to figure out detective stories faster than the characters, because that gives their Ne something to do.
I think the Si/Ne-combination is actually more efficient at learning from books/lectures or working with predefined concepts (as is required in most educational systems): Si can immediately integrate a text in its framework and make it available for Ne to work on.
Ni/Se in contrast has to "translate" the data first. The advantage of that procedure is that the "translation" process doubles as a check mechanism. When a Ni/Se-user translates faulty Si-data into his highly individual Ni-format, there is always a chance that he notices that the pieces don't fit together. A Si-user is in more danger of integrating the new facts unchecked into his worldview (unless they collide directly with facts that were known before).
I'd like to see additional viewpoints on this, so feel free to critique, agree, disagree or present countertheories.
Edit: Oh no, I actually meant to post that in the Cognitive Functions forum. Someone should probably move it *facepalm*