Speed Reading

Compared to listening to a speaker, reading seems more effortful. Why? An obvious difference is that the structure of visual language forces the reader to acquire information in a parasitic manner, looking at patterns of straight and squiggly lines, making eye movements to recognize words, and mapping these onto more “natural” auditory language abilities. But are there ways of bypassing (or minimizing) the extra demands of processing visual language? Many would lead us to believe that the answer is yes. Consider the potential benefits of reading 5 times more quickly than you currently read, with no loss in comprehension. For the past five decades (beginning with Evelyn Wood’s speed-reading programs), there have been training programs that claim to dramatically increase the speed of reading, taking advantage of the massive power of the human brain to leave readers unencumbered by the laborious additional demands of converting print to the system used for spoken language. The target article in this issue has brought together a dream team of researchers who have studied reading and rapid processing of visual information to evaluate the potential efficacy of speed-reading programs. Rayner, Schotter, Masson, Potter, and Treiman argue that if one wants to evaluate such programs, it is critical to first understand the processes that are involved in reading. Thus, the authors provide an in-depth review of the extensive literature on reading, from basic aspects of writing systems to higher-level comprehension. They also review the available empirical evidence evaluating the efficacy of speedreading programs. The review is an outstanding resource for anyone who is interested in reading and speed reading. Rayner et al argue from this literature that speed-reading training programs are unlikely to pay off as advertised because of well-established empirical facts about reading. For example, one approach espoused by speed-reading advocates is to fixate on only a few words within each line of text, thereby decreasing the number of time-consuming fixations that most words receive during normal reading. The notion here is that readers can pick up considerable information in the periphery while fixating a particular word or phrase. Rayner et al. point out that visual information quickly degrades in quality as it extends beyond the fovea and parafovea. Thus, by decreasing fixations, a reader will process fewer words, thereby decreasing comprehension. Another more recent approach is to take advantage of smart devices that use apps to present text one word after another at fixation. This strategy eliminates altogether the “wasted time” devoted to eye movements. There is a rich body of work on presenting text sequentially in this manner (called rapid serial visual presentation), and there is indeed evidence that participants can pick up some information at extraordinarily fast presentation rates. The appeal of this approach is captivating (it can be easily experienced via a simple online demonstration advocating one such training program: http:// spritzinc.com/). However, Rayner et al. argue that this procedure also has limitations because there is evidence of a breakdown in the quality of comprehension at fast presentation rates (see Potter, Kroll, & Harris, 1980). Although the procedure is intuitively appealing, it is likely that people using it are poor at evaluating how much information they are actually processing. The quality of comprehension and our ability to know how much we are comprehending (metacomprehension) is a critical issue in evaluating the appeal of speed-reading programs. As an example of our modest metacognitive abilities, consider the following passage that circulated widely on the Internet: “Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.” This demo went viral, suggesting that one can rely heavily on context in reading and avoid detailed processing of letter information. However, the perceived ease of reading 623268 PSIXXX10.1177/1529100615623268BalotaSpeed Reading research-article2015