warner@orca.UUCP (Ken Warner) (06/19/85)
When I was an under-grad at U.C.S.D. I saw a program demonstrated that would print text. One word at a time. In the center of a vdt. At a constant rate specified by the user. The idea was to eliminate altogether the need for eye movements while reading. The way I remember it is that there was some increase in reading speed with no loss of comprehension. Don't remember how much. The spitting out phrases in the same manner would be an interesting experiment.
ccrbrian@ucdavis.UUCP (Brian Reilly) (06/21/85)
> When I was an under-grad at U.C.S.D. I saw a program demonstrated that > would print text. One word at a time. In the center of a vdt. At a > constant rate specified by the user. > > The idea was to eliminate altogether the need for eye movements while > reading. The way I remember it is that there was some increase > in reading speed with no loss of comprehension. Don't remember how much. > > The spitting out phrases in the same manner would be an interesting > experiment. The device you referred to is, I think, called a tachistiscope (sp?). These were widely used in the 50's to train people to read faster, but the argument against them is that you don't have one when you are reading a book, so there is less transfer of skill than with techniques based on work done with printed material. I have seen a program for various micro-computers which does the same thing, and even lets you vary the rate and the width of the phrase presented. The Evelyn Wood company has their course available in this manner. Brian Reilly -- ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Brian Reilly Davis, CA 95616 U.C. Davis Computer Center ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb!ccrbrian
norman@sdcsla.UUCP (Donald A. Norman) (06/22/85)
>> When I was an under-grad at U.C.S.D. I saw a program demonstrated that >> would print text. One word at a time. In the center of a vdt. At a >> constant rate specified by the user. >> > >The device you referred to is, I think, called a tachistiscope (sp?). OOPS, time for me to jump in. The reference is NOT to tachistiscopic presentation but to a completely different concept called RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation). The demonstration was probably seen in my lab (a program written by Craig Will). We did not invent RSVP -- that was done elsewhere. There have been about a dozen psychological papers published on the topic. I can retrieve references for anyone who wishes to follow up on the technique (try searching Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance: go back at least 8 years). The technique is to open a window 1 character high and about 39 characters wide. Then, take the text to be read and present it one word at a time, centered, in the window. Present it fast. 600 words/minute = 100 msec./word. That's a good starting point. The ideal method gives the reader a control of speed. A knob (joystick -- mouse) can be used. Or you can use a key. Space = speed up; non-space = slow down. You can indeed read much faster this way, with comprehension. It demands intense concentration on the part of the reader (which is typical of all speed reading methods). I find it quite unsatisfying: subjectively, I feel that the spatial arrangement on the page is useful, and I miss it. It is no good for figures, of course. Speed reading versus RSVP: Anyone can learn to speed read at roughly the same speed. A difference is that to do speed reading you have to force yourself to concentrate, to avoid retracing material ("regressions"), and to force yourself to keep up the speed. Most people give up speed reading after a few months. The RSVP method makes the control of speed external, which makes it easier for many people to keep using it. With RSVP, eye movements are eliminated, whereas in speed reading, you have to learn how to control them. With the sample program we had running I tried reading my mail with it for a while (it would be great for plowing through the AI digest on USENET). But you can't skip ahead -- you have to plow through everything at the same rate. So, if you want to (approximately) double your reading speed, try it. But you may not like it. Donald A. Norman Institute for Cognitive Science C-015 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093 UNIX: {ucbvax,decvax}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!norman ARPA: norman@nprdc CSNET: norman%nprdc.arpa@csnet-relay
jqj@cornell.UUCP (J Q Johnson) (06/23/85)
In article <292@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrbrian@deneb.UUCP (Brian Reilly) writes: >The device you referred to is, I think, called a tachistiscope (sp?). >These were widely used in the 50's to train people to read faster, but the >argument against them is that you don't have one when you are reading a >book, so there is less transfer of skill than with techniques based on >work done with printed material. Actually, a T-scope, although it can be used for such purposes, is not at all suited for the task. A T-scope is actually a box with a bunch of electrically controlled mirrors and lights that allows an experimenter to present a small number of different pictures/stimuli to a subject in very rapid succession, with fine (millisecond) control over timing and excellent control over illumination and registration. Unfortunately, the number of fields (different pictures) is typically 3 or 4, and changing the picture in a field is typically done manually, so they are not well designed for presenting more than 3 or 4 stimuli in rapid succession. There has been a tremendous amount of research on eye movement and reading in the past 5 years or so. Could someone who knows this research please summarize? In particular, my understanding (am I correct?) is that a typical reading strategy is to occasionally glance back at previously scanned text (perhaps to save short term memory while processing a syntactic transformation?), and that forward-only pacing reduces comprehension (particularly of syntactically complex sentences?) by interfering with this.
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/23/85)
> > The technique is to open a window 1 character high and about 39 characters > wide. Then, take the text to be read and present it one word at a time, > centered, in the window. Present it fast. 600 words/minute = 100 > msec./word. That's a good starting point. The ideal method gives the > reader a control of speed. A knob (joystick -- mouse) can be used. Or you > can use a key. Space = speed up; non-space = slow down. > > You can indeed read much faster this way, with comprehension. > > Donald A. Norman Maybe there is a process like afterimages where the buffer still contains the previous word when a new one comes in. Did you try varying the pauses? The experiment is not incompatible with the idea that fluent readers read phrases. If you put in longer pauses at phrase boundries then perhaps the over-all reading speed could be increased even more. 600 WPM is not very fast, I often read fiction at 1000 WMP +. At 600 WPM, perhaps the physical image of the previous word is still on the screen so the reader makes sense of it in phrases anyway. pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/08/85)
> > When I was an under-grad at U.C.S.D. I saw a program demonstrated that > > would print text. One word at a time. In the center of a vdt. At a > > constant rate specified by the user. > > > > The idea was to eliminate altogether the need for eye movements while > > reading. The way I remember it is that there was some increase > > in reading speed with no loss of comprehension. Don't remember how much. > > Were any optometrists' opinion asked on these matters? I am sure that even if there are some short term gains to be had from this kind of technique, the long-term side-effects (reduced vision due to lack of exercise of eye muscles) probably far outweigh them. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
gaynor@topaz.ARPA (Gaynor) (07/11/85)
In article <1222@mnetor.UUCP>, sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: ...a program flashing one word at a time producing some increase in speed with no loss of comprehension, by decreasing the total amount of eye-movements (paraphrase)... > Were any optometrists' opinion asked on these matters? I am sure that > even if there are some short term gains to be had from this kind of > technique, the long-term side-effects (reduced vision due to lack of > exercise of eye muscles) probably far outweigh them. Some speculation: I wouldn't think there would be a significant weakening of the eye muscles due to the amount of use they see :-), and I also think that the significant portion of one's reading would still be of the normal type. I wonder at the original posting, though. The time saved by the reduction of eye-movements offsets the savings from expections of what's to be read by periphal lookahead?
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/16/85)
I remember a relative of one of these devices being used in a
speed reading course I took, long long ago. It was mechanical, not
electronic, and was called a tachistoscope. The idea was not that it should
be used regularly as a display device, but to demonstrate to you how much
you do take in even in the short time each "frame" (word or line) was
displayed. And it was not supposed to defeat peripheral vision but just
the opposite, show you that you could in fact rely on your peripheral
vision to some extent.
The training was supposed to carry over to reading regular text in
books. Having learned that you can take in several words (3 to 5?) in a
single fixation on the tachistoscope, when you went to normal page reading
you would give each line only two or three fixations. (It also provided
pacing, which was supposed to similarly carry over to regular reading.)
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarsophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/18/85)
> In article <1222@mnetor.UUCP>, sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > > ...a program flashing one word at a time producing some > increase in speed with no loss of comprehension, by > decreasing the total amount of eye-movements (paraphrase)... > > > Were any optometrists' opinion asked on these matters? I am sure that > > even if there are some short term gains to be had from this kind of > > technique, the long-term side-effects (reduced vision due to lack of > > exercise of eye muscles) probably far outweigh them. > > Some speculation: > > I wouldn't think there would be a significant weakening of the eye > muscles due to the amount of use they see :-). No speculation: my own vision varies greatly depending on how much exercise my eye muscles get. I am not alone in this. According to my optometrist, most people who develop myopia after the age of 12 have a type of myopia who is caused not by some deformation of the eyes, but by problems with the eye muscles. Sorry, I cannot be more precise about this. I don't really know much more about the topic. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
rosen@mtgzz.UUCP (t.rosenfeld) (07/23/85)
> When I was an under-grad at U.C.S.D. I saw a program demonstrated that > would print text. One word at a time. In the center of a vdt. At a > constant rate specified by the user. > > The idea was to eliminate altogether the need for eye movements while > reading. The way I remember it is that there was some increase > in reading speed with no loss of comprehension. Don't remember how much. > Does anyone out there have source to such a program that runs on UNIX? I am currently taking a speed reading course, but most of the techniques would not work well on a vdt. If no one has such a program it would seem like a worthwhile little project, ( I wish I had the time). It seems alot of reading dynamics principals could be incorporate with a few (simple) features: 1) draw the screen from top to bottom, clearing it first, so that you could read while the screen was updating. 2) Use some terminal capability such as underline or reverse-video to move through the text (in place of your finger). The speed could either be preset or controlled via the cursor keys. (Using such an underline technique seems more appropriate than simply flashing one word at a time. In this way you can use your peripheral vision, and alleviate any fears of atrophying your eye muscles.) ( -- Thomas Rosenfeld UUCP: ...mtgzz!rosen