Slashdot Mirror
Why Speed-Reading Apps Don't Work
sciencehabit writes: "Does reading faster mean reading better? That's what speed-reading apps claim, promising to boost not just the number of words you read per minute, but also how well you understand a text. There's just one problem: The same thing that speeds up reading actually gets in the way of comprehension, according to a new study (abstract). Apps like Spritz or the aptly-named Speed Read are built around the idea that these eye movements, called saccades, are a redundant waste of time. It's more efficient, their designers claim, to present words one at a time in a fixed spot on a screen, discouraging saccades and helping you get through a text more quickly. But that's not what researchers have found."
the first time i read it
When I read a page, I can actually see multiple words in a sentence, context from the line(s) above, and generally can access a context of about 10-15 words at a time. While speed reading (as in, actual speed reading a page), you read by going down the center of the page, which preserves a good chunk of the context, and assumes that missing a few words here and there is only going to minorly impair your understanding of the text.
This, on the other hand, provides a minor speed-up at the cost of context, the ability to back-track and no ability to skip words that don't help much with understanding like various particles or flowery prose.
Yep, this approach is idiotic.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Though the article does note that this is the case for a lot of people, but the big advantage of reading over other media (e.g. audio or video) is that reading is self-pacing. When reading information rich texts, it allows me to gloss over details that I already know while focusing upon details that I don't. When I'm in a lousy state of mind (e.g. having difficulty concentrating due to lack of sleep or external concerns) it allows me to slow down. When I'm in a good state of mind (e.g. I'm motivated to read the text or am well rested) it allows me to speed up.
Simply put: I read rather than watch or listen because my mind is in control of the flow of information.
The reason speed reading apps don't work is because you either know how to read fast or you don't. The average human should be able to read well over 200 - 1000 words a minute, any less and you have much bigger problems, more then an app can solve. This should be the chart for reading speed:
1. Fast: 1000+ words / minute
2. Normal 200 - 1000 words / minute
3. Slow 100 - 200 words / minutes
4. Unacceptably slow less then 100 words / minute.
People who read at less then 100 words per minute have a completely different problem that can't be solved from a simple app on a phone.
1000 words per minute? Next time you pull numbers out of your ass make sure they're not a joke. No one reads anything of value at that speed. You can scan text quickly but you won't actually be reading it. Anyone claiming otherwise is likely trying to sell you a speed reading course, or stroking their ePeen on Slashdot (see half of the replies I'm going to get from alleged super speed readers).
tl;dr
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It was shown quite some time ago that adults "read" by recognizing the shapes of words, not their spelling. If this is true then it would explain the problems described in TFA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/...
I'm fully capable of reading at 1000+ words / minute and remembering the information, so next time you want to claim it can't be done, make sure you're not talking to someone who can. I was able to read 300 words / minute in grade 6 and retain information over a 90% level. I was fair and put the average at 200 words / minute, which is still pretty slow, you have to be crawling through a book at that pace.
As someone who works in a lab that studies language use, I accept your challenge. :) (Full disclosure: The authors of the paper in question are friends and colleagues of mine.)
I'm not trying to be flippant, but I'm honestly not actually sure why your idea *would* increase reading speed. Many speed reading techniques are predicated on the idea that the problem with reading is subvocalization (saying words to yourself as you're reading them), and that one of the ways to improve reading speed is to eliminate subvocalization. Your idea sounds like it would try to speed up reading by speeding up subvocalization - a different approach, though perhaps a related one. But I think the premise that subvocalization is bad for reading - that it constitutes a bottleneck to be discarded - is akin to the idea that regressions (looking back in the text to words you've already read) are bad for reading, which is the idea that the paper in question tries to debunk. With the possible exception of people with certain kinds of reading disabilities, it's generally not the case that our eyes need to be trained to move faster: The biggest bottleneck is that your brain can only process so many words per second.
If you think about it, reading is an incredibly complex process. With every word you read, you have to look at a sequence of letters, figure out what they are based on their shapes, identify the corresponding word, retrieve its meaning, and integrate it into the context of the discourse. All of that takes time. Moving your eyes across more and more letters each second is not going to help you process the words any faster. Suggestions to the contrary are equivalent to saying that if a sink drains too slowly, you should add water to the sink at a faster rate. That contributes only to the problem, not to the solution.
I had a very similar idea, and it will work. Really. By the way, the poster above, Bysmuth, is dead wrong, labs and all. Feel free to contact me (Bill Cox - waywardgeek@gmail.com) if you need me as a reference to support this idea.
One of my contributions to open source and the blind community has been improving speech speedup algorithms. I listen at > 600 wpm, and have a blind friend who listens at double that. As part of this, I've done numerous A/B tests on many subjects (friends, family and acquaintances), trying to figure out what works for them. Here's what I found. First, anyone who is already a high speed reader also very rapidly becomes able to listen at high speed. This is 100% correlated, after maybe 100-ish tests. I found no counter examples, and the strength of listening speed ability increases with the subject's reading speed. While some speed readers do not hear a voice while reading, it must still using the speech centers in their brain, because high speed readers are already prepared for speed listening, whether they claim to vocalise or not. There are other contributing factors, most notably age. I am the only non-blind person I know who learned to be comfortable speed-listening after the age of 40, though I do have a strong central vision loss issue. Every test I did on with anyone over 40 backed up the fact that speed readers are also naturally speed listeners, but the > 40 crowd is almost violently opposed to speed listening, while the under 40 crowd thinks it's cool. I know... that's such an objective scientific observation :-)
Also, I found that non-blind listeners who force themselves to learn to speed listen (including me), discover that their regular reading speed increases naturally. People can argue all day long about vocalisation being good/bad while reading, but the fact is that the same centers in the brain are used regardless. If you train to listen fast, your reading speed will increase, and vise-versa. This is the single most obvious conclusion I have been able to draw. It's a very real effect.
Another interesting point is that young people will, given a chance, naturally turn up the audio speed over time while listening to good books, very much like we see kids reading faster as they read a good series.
Reading a story both visually and audibly in parallel should enable a reader (whether mostly using their eyes or ears) to focus on the story the way that is more natural for him, and as he goes faster over time, his regular reading speed will increase, regardless of his preference for audio or printed text.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
I was fortunate to be given a speed reading class that took several weeks as a high school graduation present back in the dark ages (1965). I took the course and practiced as I was told, but I never did believe it was doing any good and it was definitely not a fun way to read anything for pleasure. Fast forward to the next year and I am a freshman in engineering, but having to take an "elective" political science course in which I had no interest at all. Since the purpose of the freshman year in engineering is to cull the masses I concentrated on what, to me, were the far more important classes I had. A few days before the final exam I realized that I was not going to pass that polysci class unless I could pull off a near perfect score on the final. The professor was kind enough to confirm my calculations on that point. For two days before the final I read the entire text book through cover to cover TWICE. I scored in the high 90's on the final and passed the course with a C+. When I was taking the exam, I really was just sort of zoned out. Much of the test was essay questions and I would just write whatever came into my head on the subject, not really knowing what I was saying or where it came from.
Now, I would have put this down as a fluke except that I was able to do very similar things for the rest of my career in engineering. Although trained in systems engineering I started out working with computer systems when computers were big iron and I worked on both IBM, Univac, and DEC systems. Then I successfully made the transition to PC's and networks and retired as a Network Engineer and Security Officer. Often I would have to learn enough to get started in a new area about which I knew almost nothing with little time to do so. I would get 5 or 6 books on the subject and absorb them over a weekend and could then get up to speed pretty quickly after that.
I still don't understand how it works, and I am still not sure I really believe it works, but for over 40 years the speed reading class I took in 1965 saved my bacon many times.
I'm fully capable of reading at 1000+ words / minute and remembering the information, so next time you want to claim it can't be done, make sure you're not talking to someone who can.
If you're really a person who can do this, PLEASE volunteer for one of these studies, so we actually have some reliable evidence. Because basically every previous study on this stuff says comprehension goes significantly down as reading speed goes up.
Quite a few studies have shown this (some articles summarizing findings here, here, here, here), and the only ones that seem to ever disagree are those designed by the speed-reading course or software people. Even for professional high-volume readers and people who performed well in generic speed-reading tests showed a maximum of about 75% comprehension at 600 words/minute.
And there are loads of cognitive science studies that demonstrate why this must be so. Lots of research on eye movements during reading and the maximum possible speed they can take things in, the way our retinas work and focus, cognitive constraints on the extent and speed of our "working memory," etc.
By the time you get to your claimed speed of 1000 words/minute, I sincerely doubt you're getting anywhere close to 50% comprehension. Therefore, what you're doing is skimming, not reading.
There's nothing wrong with skimming. it's an incredibly useful skill which I really picked up in graduate school. I have used it all the time when teaching and (when preparing for class) needing to re-read an article I haven't looked at in a long time (and don't really remember) or a new article dealing with a subject I'm already familiar with. I can certainly skim at 1000 words/minute and be prepared to discuss a lot of important points of an article, but if a student queries me on something very specific, I guarantee that we'll have to slow down, I'll go back, and take a look at that specific passage. When you're already fairly familiar with the field or kind of material, you can often zoom on essential elements fairly quickly, and your comprehension rate gets higher -- but you're still not reading. And if you were reading something outside of your discipline, the comprehension would go WAY down at such speeds.
So -- sorry, but your claims to read at that speed and retain information have been debunked by many studies along with many other supporting cognitive science studies that basically show why it can't work.
If indeed you are some person with a freakish skill that you can demonstrate under controlled conditions, please volunteer for a study. Otherwise, I (and any other reasonable person here) should assume that what you're actually doing at 1000 words/minute is skimming, and you're probably only getting a small fraction of the total information.
In the summer after second grade (1975) I was sent to summer school with about 20 other kids that were identified as 'gifted readers'. The entire summer was spent on speed reading.
They had a projector that scrolled text in a marquis fashion, and over the summer they gradually dialed it up. There were tests daily and the test results affected the speed of the next days scroll.
Back in the 90's I searched in vain for an app that would do the same thing. Recently when I heard there were several new speed reading apps available I optimistically looked into them (for my grand daughter), but unfortunately they were all using the same stupid approaches these apps (nee programs) were using 15 years ago.
I usually read a novel in 4-8 hours, and I usually read it all in one go. I really don't like to break up a book. I never skim or 'try' to read faster, and in my mind, reading the book is like watching a movie.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Great. Again, take part in a study, please. It's all great to "self-diagnose" or test yourself with some online tool that's probably designed to sell you something. But the actual studies done by cognitive scientists and reading experts don't seem to find the speed reading claims with comprehension to be real.
Look -- I read by word groups too: anyone who is fluent in a language and reads A LOT probably does. There probably are some differences in normal reading speed for maximum comprehension (and maybe some of it has to do with the way people are taught or bad habits or whatever) -- the figures I've seen say it might vary between 200 and 400 wpm or so. But 1000 wpm for full comprehension? Nope. Not in any reputable study. And, more relevant to the present discussion, multiple studies have shown that people who train themselves using speedreading methods (like deliberately trying to avoid subvocalization or reading by groupings or whatever) don't perform any better than untrained readers who are asked to skim in comprehension tests (and sometimes trained speedreaders perform worse). There may be some gain in superficial understanding for speedreading techniques, but no demonstrated advantage over normal people skimming in terms of deep comprehension.
In sum, I have no doubt you may read faster than your coworkers on average, and your comprehension may be better. But I have serious doubts if you claim full comprehension at speeds over 500 wpm.
Many years ago I got pulled into a scam around speed reading. A good friend (at the time) was in the thrall of a conman with an interesting proposal. The elevator pitch went something like this: "Imagine a system that flashes words at you subliminally and when it detects you haven't understood a word (via a biofeedback mechanism) it then flashes the dictionary definition of that word. You could read an entire book in minutes and have complete understanding of the content."
Even though I was young I still could smell bullshit. A small group of similarly-minded people tried to pop the bubble, but when the true believers had invested so much time and emotional energy there was no turning them around. The was more to it than this: crazy mind games, a three-car pile up and other weirdness (including an impromptu cover of "The Rainbow Connection" in an upmarket restaurant), but I won't bore you with the details. The end-point is it soured a friendship which never recovered.
Maybe I'm biased by that experience, but any technology that promises to solve problems by getting people to read faster - instead of, say, with better comprehension - leaves me with the taste of snake-oil in my mouth.
I am German, so please excuse me, if my English isn't that good. There once was a study in Germany, what effect almost exclusively lower case in german texts would have. The result was, that texts are better understandable with nouns written with an upper case first letter. They serve as anchors, especially, when reading fast. Furthermore, in English it is common, that the same word is used as a verb and a noun. This actually would be a damn good reason to write nouns with an upper case first letter. When you skim through an English text, and notice, for example, the word "jump", you don't even know, if it is the verb or the noun. This can also be a source of ambiguity. Another big source of ambiguity is the usage of "it" to refer to almost everything, because most words don't have a grammatical gender. You have to be aware of that, when you are creating relative sentences in English. Even people are not always gendered in English. Is the tennis player female or male? You often have to read a fair bit into a text, until he/she (see?) is referenced as "her" or "him". I have seen some discussions between native English speakers on the internet, were someone wrote sth. like "Ah, so the teacher was your mother!" or "I thought, the cat was chasing the car, not the dog." Oh, this last example has another ambiguity. I should write "I thought, the cat, not the dog, was chasing the car". This ambiguity does not occur in German because articles are declined dependent on the gender and relation. http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/... To put it in a nutshell, it seems logical, that speed reading is especially hard in English. The more possible ambiguities you have, the more likely you will have to stop and think about, what is really meant.