Speed reading: does it work or not? Part 2: parsing techniques
The summary of the first part : speed reading is a set of different mechanics who [in some cases] help to get information from the text faster than with ordinary reading. Nevertheless, even speed reading will not help reading with a “machine-gun” speed - your abilities will increase, but are unlikely to exceed 500-600 words per minute (among the commentators to the previous part of the material, however, there were also those who managed to develop a reading speed and 700 words per minute. Most of the high-profile statements made by scribes who set world records in thousands of words per minute are nothing more than self-advertisement and unconfirmed data (the exception is “rain man” Kim Pick).
However, according to studies, not all speed reading techniques are “equally useful”. The effectiveness of some is not confirmed or controversial, but there are some techniques that simply go against what we know about human physiology. Let's try to understand the capabilities of the most popular methods of fast reading.
/ Photos by Kevin Thai / CC
')
Under this collective name, several speed reading techniques can be combined at once: first, reading “zigzags” (zigzag movements of gaze on the page), secondly, “covering” the whole page, “at a glance”. According to skorchetets, practicing these techniques, a similar approach allows them to read using peripheral vision.
What scientists say: read in this way is hardly possible. The whole problem is the same peripheral vision. Scientists argue that peripheral vision (with all its advantages) does not allow us to adequately perceive and recognize the text — in such conditions we simply cannot read it.
We can read only the text that falls into the zone of our foveal vision (central in 1.5-2 ° field of view ): for comparison, approximately our area gets our thumb, if you stretch your hand in front of you. Therefore, the human eye cannot read a paragraph or even the entire page — you simply will not see the text.
When “reading diagonally,” our view snatches individual words or phrases, which does not allow us to read fully. However, using this approach, we can, for example, get some insight into the material, if we have read it before, and no changes have been made to the text since then .
Verdict : physiologically this kind of reading is impossible.
Another speed reading strategy involves reading without stopping. In order to understand how it differs from ordinary reading, we will have to recall what we described in the first part : our “standard” reading is a discrete process. We fix ourselves on a certain group of words, then with a jerky movement we look at another group and so on. After several jumps (or saccades ), we make a small pause (during which the brain gets an additional opportunity to process the read).
These regular pauses take from a quarter to half a second - and speed reading without stopping is aimed at suppressing them. However, not everything is so simple: in this way, you not only save time, but also do not give yourself the opportunity to better understand and remember what you read. Moreover, completely suppressing the desire to “give yourself a break” is not so easy - most likely, you will still have such pauses (albeit less often), but the quality of perception of the read will still worsen.
Verdict : physically such reading is quite possible. The problem is only in the quality of perception of the text. Some readers of our first part distinguished between “reading with retelling” and “reading without retelling” and not by chance - in order to retell the read text, it is important not just to run through the lines “in one breath”.
Subvocalization is the “voice in our head,” which sounds when we read the text. It also takes precious time to subvocalize or pronouncing, which is saved by skorottetsy. In some cases, such a pronunciation leads to the fact that the speed of reading to oneself is equal to the speed of reading out loud. Therefore, many speed reading techniques teach you to suppress the desire to talk to yourself about the material you have read and help you tune in to "reading with your eyes."
The problem here is that subvocalization is an important element of text recognition, and by suppressing this desire, we begin to understand what is read worse:
Moreover, both Reiner and Ronald Carver (another speed reading researcher and professor of pedagogy and psychology at the University of Missouri in Kansas City) showed that it is impossible to completely get rid of speaking the text - even those who read 720 words per minute, and those who skim through the text (they pronounce keywords).
It was proved as follows - electromagnetic sensors were connected to the subjects' throats, which recorded weak nerve impulses sent to the muscles. As a result, it turned out that even those who argue that they do not do this at all speak out the text - our brain simply cannot do without sub-vocalization.
This inner voice or “subvocal speech” even became the subject of research by NASA - they wanted to understand whether this feature could be used to give “silent commands”:
By the way, fast reading champions do not have to quickly speak or read aloud, they simply have an “inner dictionary of easily recognizable words”. Strange words we speak to ourselves more slowly, words that already exist in our internal dictionary are faster.
Verdict : it is impossible to completely get rid of subvocalization. Moreover, in order to read more quickly, taking into account the pronunciation of words, it is useful to first “learn to read more slowly” - to expand the internal glossary of terms, carefully studying new and unfamiliar words, so that it is easier to pronounce them, having met them again.
Fast sequential visual presentation is a method that is somewhat similar to reading without pauses. However, it is not the reader himself who is responsible for the absence of pauses between the demonstration of words, but the application. RSVP is a method of displaying information on the display when words or groups of words are displayed on the screen in small portions. This technology causes a lot of debate, because there are studies that testify both for and against it.
Often, the developers of RSVP applications base their argument on the fact that “only 20% of the time in the reading process is spent on comprehending the text, and 80% on the movement of looking through the page”. Therefore, a technique that allows you to fix the gaze at one point should save the reader time significantly.
Here, scientists can argue: in fact, our “process of understanding” the text does not stop for a minute (we think about the text and when we read it, and when we look from one group of words to another, and when we pause to “digest” what we read) . Therefore, RSVP techniques can really save us some time, but they definitely won't increase the reading speed by 80%.
However, more convincing arguments in defense of the RSVP technician testify. For example, in studies of the Spritz methodology, it is argued that the basis for the success of this technique is not only the consistent display on the screen of small portions of words, but also the correct alignment of words and the selection of the correct speed and rhythm of their output.
Speed and rhythm here really play an important role: as speed grows, according to Rayner, our ability to perceive and process what we see decreases. As a result, the reader ceases to understand what, in fact, he reads.
In addition, the application does not “know” which words will be familiar to the reader, and which ones he sees for the first time (the same “internal dictionary”), therefore, he cannot adapt the speed of information output taking this factor into account. But with “normal reading,” we automatically hold our gaze on less familiar words for a longer time in order to memorize them and supplement our “dictionary”.
All this is complicated by the fact that in the case of most applications that work on RSVP mechanics, the user is not so easy to “rewind the text back” - as a rule, this option is possible, but with normal reading it is much easier to return to what we read .
Verdict : techniques of fast sequential visual presentation really help to read faster - at least by reducing the movement of the eye on the screen. However, as the speed at which words are displayed on the screen increases, the quality of our perception may deteriorate - in fact, the faster the words are displayed, the less the reader will remember. Due to the fact that in applications it is impossible to hold the gaze on all unfamiliar words for longer and it is difficult to unwind the text back, this method is hardly suitable for learning a new, complex discipline.
For the same reasons, it is not easy to use it for reading fiction - the columnist Lifehacker, for example, noted that the RSVP method can help process a lot of information, but it will not be easy to feel the pleasure of reading with it. Therefore, The Atlantic advises to use it for reading news articles and small articles - that is, texts that do not require deep immersion in the topic. If you do decide to try this method, look in the direction of the applications from these lists: 1 and 2 .
Reading diagonally and trying to cover the whole page with a glance are unlikely to have anything in common with real reading. Most of the text in this case falls into the zone of peripheral vision and simply cannot be read. These techniques do not allow reading the text, but they can be used to quickly run through already familiar materials.
Reading without stopping is also not the best way to save time. This approach markedly reduces our ability to perceive the material. As a result, you can quickly read the text, but it will be extremely difficult to remember and retell its content.
Subvocalization suppression is another poorly performing technique. Studies show that the reader always recites the text to himself, even if he is sure of the opposite. Moreover, subvocalization helps us better understand what we read. Instead of suppressing it, it is worth expanding your vocabulary - it takes less time for us to speak familiar words internally, and this skill is not associated with the ability to quickly read aloud.
RSVP - this technique works, but with limitations. You can read faster, but it is unlikely to increase the speed of reading many times. In addition, the peculiarities of this technique make its use difficult in cases when it is necessary to read complex material (for example, an article from a scientific journal on a topic new to the reader). Reading for pleasure in this format is also inconvenient. Ideal - mail, news notes and articles like this.
In the third [and last] part we will talk about cases where speed reading still does not do what “slow” reading is and how to save time reading “serious” scientific literature - without resorting to complex techniques.
PS Other materials from ITMO University:
However, according to studies, not all speed reading techniques are “equally useful”. The effectiveness of some is not confirmed or controversial, but there are some techniques that simply go against what we know about human physiology. Let's try to understand the capabilities of the most popular methods of fast reading.
/ Photos by Kevin Thai / CC
')
Reading "diagonally"
Under this collective name, several speed reading techniques can be combined at once: first, reading “zigzags” (zigzag movements of gaze on the page), secondly, “covering” the whole page, “at a glance”. According to skorchetets, practicing these techniques, a similar approach allows them to read using peripheral vision.
What scientists say: read in this way is hardly possible. The whole problem is the same peripheral vision. Scientists argue that peripheral vision (with all its advantages) does not allow us to adequately perceive and recognize the text — in such conditions we simply cannot read it.
We can read only the text that falls into the zone of our foveal vision (central in 1.5-2 ° field of view ): for comparison, approximately our area gets our thumb, if you stretch your hand in front of you. Therefore, the human eye cannot read a paragraph or even the entire page — you simply will not see the text.
When “reading diagonally,” our view snatches individual words or phrases, which does not allow us to read fully. However, using this approach, we can, for example, get some insight into the material, if we have read it before, and no changes have been made to the text since then .
Verdict : physiologically this kind of reading is impossible.
You can read a little faster than 500 words per minute, but you are limited by the capabilities of your eyes and the anatomy of the retina. To understand the text, you need to move the gaze so that the foveal vision area is in the section of the [page] where you want to focus. Outside this area, visual acuity is noticeably lower - you cannot distinguish between words and text far beyond the central field of view. This is a factor limiting the speed of reading and processing information by the brain.
- Keith Rayner, one of the most famous researchers of reading (he worked at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst), the book Eye Movement and Information Processing in the Process of Reading
Reading without stopping
Another speed reading strategy involves reading without stopping. In order to understand how it differs from ordinary reading, we will have to recall what we described in the first part : our “standard” reading is a discrete process. We fix ourselves on a certain group of words, then with a jerky movement we look at another group and so on. After several jumps (or saccades ), we make a small pause (during which the brain gets an additional opportunity to process the read).
These regular pauses take from a quarter to half a second - and speed reading without stopping is aimed at suppressing them. However, not everything is so simple: in this way, you not only save time, but also do not give yourself the opportunity to better understand and remember what you read. Moreover, completely suppressing the desire to “give yourself a break” is not so easy - most likely, you will still have such pauses (albeit less often), but the quality of perception of the read will still worsen.
Verdict : physically such reading is quite possible. The problem is only in the quality of perception of the text. Some readers of our first part distinguished between “reading with retelling” and “reading without retelling” and not by chance - in order to retell the read text, it is important not just to run through the lines “in one breath”.
Subvocalization suppression
Subvocalization is the “voice in our head,” which sounds when we read the text. It also takes precious time to subvocalize or pronouncing, which is saved by skorottetsy. In some cases, such a pronunciation leads to the fact that the speed of reading to oneself is equal to the speed of reading out loud. Therefore, many speed reading techniques teach you to suppress the desire to talk to yourself about the material you have read and help you tune in to "reading with your eyes."
The problem here is that subvocalization is an important element of text recognition, and by suppressing this desire, we begin to understand what is read worse:
You can practice and probably your reading speed will increase, but by reading too fast, you will no longer understand the text. Disposal of sub-vocalization is used in most speed reading techniques. Studies [ 1 , 2 ] show that if the text is complex enough, it becomes impossible to understand.
- Keith Rayner, ibid.
Moreover, both Reiner and Ronald Carver (another speed reading researcher and professor of pedagogy and psychology at the University of Missouri in Kansas City) showed that it is impossible to completely get rid of speaking the text - even those who read 720 words per minute, and those who skim through the text (they pronounce keywords).
It was proved as follows - electromagnetic sensors were connected to the subjects' throats, which recorded weak nerve impulses sent to the muscles. As a result, it turned out that even those who argue that they do not do this at all speak out the text - our brain simply cannot do without sub-vocalization.
This inner voice or “subvocal speech” even became the subject of research by NASA - they wanted to understand whether this feature could be used to give “silent commands”:
Biological signals occur during reading or internal dialogue - regardless of whether the movement of the lips and facial muscles is fixed. A person using subvocalization thinks about some words and pronounces them to himself so quietly that it is impossible to hear, but the language and vocal cords still receive speech signals from the brain.
- Chuck Jorgensen, head of the sub-local registration system development team, NASA
By the way, fast reading champions do not have to quickly speak or read aloud, they simply have an “inner dictionary of easily recognizable words”. Strange words we speak to ourselves more slowly, words that already exist in our internal dictionary are faster.
Verdict : it is impossible to completely get rid of subvocalization. Moreover, in order to read more quickly, taking into account the pronunciation of words, it is useful to first “learn to read more slowly” - to expand the internal glossary of terms, carefully studying new and unfamiliar words, so that it is easier to pronounce them, having met them again.
Fast sequential visual presentation, Rapid serial visual presentation, RSVP
Fast sequential visual presentation is a method that is somewhat similar to reading without pauses. However, it is not the reader himself who is responsible for the absence of pauses between the demonstration of words, but the application. RSVP is a method of displaying information on the display when words or groups of words are displayed on the screen in small portions. This technology causes a lot of debate, because there are studies that testify both for and against it.
Often, the developers of RSVP applications base their argument on the fact that “only 20% of the time in the reading process is spent on comprehending the text, and 80% on the movement of looking through the page”. Therefore, a technique that allows you to fix the gaze at one point should save the reader time significantly.
Here, scientists can argue: in fact, our “process of understanding” the text does not stop for a minute (we think about the text and when we read it, and when we look from one group of words to another, and when we pause to “digest” what we read) . Therefore, RSVP techniques can really save us some time, but they definitely won't increase the reading speed by 80%.
However, more convincing arguments in defense of the RSVP technician testify. For example, in studies of the Spritz methodology, it is argued that the basis for the success of this technique is not only the consistent display on the screen of small portions of words, but also the correct alignment of words and the selection of the correct speed and rhythm of their output.
Speed and rhythm here really play an important role: as speed grows, according to Rayner, our ability to perceive and process what we see decreases. As a result, the reader ceases to understand what, in fact, he reads.
In addition, the application does not “know” which words will be familiar to the reader, and which ones he sees for the first time (the same “internal dictionary”), therefore, he cannot adapt the speed of information output taking this factor into account. But with “normal reading,” we automatically hold our gaze on less familiar words for a longer time in order to memorize them and supplement our “dictionary”.
All this is complicated by the fact that in the case of most applications that work on RSVP mechanics, the user is not so easy to “rewind the text back” - as a rule, this option is possible, but with normal reading it is much easier to return to what we read .
Verdict : techniques of fast sequential visual presentation really help to read faster - at least by reducing the movement of the eye on the screen. However, as the speed at which words are displayed on the screen increases, the quality of our perception may deteriorate - in fact, the faster the words are displayed, the less the reader will remember. Due to the fact that in applications it is impossible to hold the gaze on all unfamiliar words for longer and it is difficult to unwind the text back, this method is hardly suitable for learning a new, complex discipline.
For the same reasons, it is not easy to use it for reading fiction - the columnist Lifehacker, for example, noted that the RSVP method can help process a lot of information, but it will not be easy to feel the pleasure of reading with it. Therefore, The Atlantic advises to use it for reading news articles and small articles - that is, texts that do not require deep immersion in the topic. If you do decide to try this method, look in the direction of the applications from these lists: 1 and 2 .
So briefly:
Reading diagonally and trying to cover the whole page with a glance are unlikely to have anything in common with real reading. Most of the text in this case falls into the zone of peripheral vision and simply cannot be read. These techniques do not allow reading the text, but they can be used to quickly run through already familiar materials.
Reading without stopping is also not the best way to save time. This approach markedly reduces our ability to perceive the material. As a result, you can quickly read the text, but it will be extremely difficult to remember and retell its content.
Subvocalization suppression is another poorly performing technique. Studies show that the reader always recites the text to himself, even if he is sure of the opposite. Moreover, subvocalization helps us better understand what we read. Instead of suppressing it, it is worth expanding your vocabulary - it takes less time for us to speak familiar words internally, and this skill is not associated with the ability to quickly read aloud.
RSVP - this technique works, but with limitations. You can read faster, but it is unlikely to increase the speed of reading many times. In addition, the peculiarities of this technique make its use difficult in cases when it is necessary to read complex material (for example, an article from a scientific journal on a topic new to the reader). Reading for pleasure in this format is also inconvenient. Ideal - mail, news notes and articles like this.
In the third [and last] part we will talk about cases where speed reading still does not do what “slow” reading is and how to save time reading “serious” scientific literature - without resorting to complex techniques.
PS Other materials from ITMO University:
- How technological entrepreneurship and science fiction are related
- Postgraduate Studies at ITMO University: the main thing about entering and studying in 2017
- Polymer holograms with “runaway” nanoparticles were developed by university scientists
- EMI life hacking: how to teach in English if you are not a native speaker
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/331662/
All Articles