Assessment of Stimuli for Supporting Speed Reading on
Electronic Devices
Tilman Dingler, Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Kai Kunze† , Albrecht Schmidt†
VIS, University of Stuttgart
Keio University
Stuttgart, Germany
Yokohama, Japan{firstname.lastname}@vis.uni-stuttgart.de
kai.kunze@gmail.com
ABSTRACTINTRODUCTION

Technology has introduced multimedia to tailor information
more broadly to our various senses, but by no means has
the ability to consume information through reading lost its
importance. To cope with the ever-growing amount of textual information to consume, different techniques have been
proposed to increase reading efficiency: rapid serial visualpresentation (RSVP) has been suggested to increase reading
speed by effectively reducing the number of eye movements.
Further, moving a pen, finger or the entire hand across text
is a common technique among speed readers to help guideeye movements. We adopted these techniques for electronic
devices by introducing stimuli on text that guide users’ eye
movements. In a series of two user studies we sped up users’
reading speed to 150% of their normal rate and evaluated effects on text comprehension, mental load, eye movements andsubjective perception. Results show that reading speed canbe effectively increased by using such stimuli while keeping comprehension rates nearly stable. We observed initialstrain on mental load which significantly decreased after ashort while. Subjective feedback conveys that kinetic stimuli are better suited for long, complex text on larger displays,
whereas RSVP was preferred for short text on small displays.

Reading is an ancient activity traditionally taken up for information gain and pleasure. With the advent of the information age and the creation of electronic reading devices - suchas mobile phones, e-readers or tablets - our reading behavior
has been changing and we are facing new challenges, one ofwhich being information overload. We are bombarded with
an abundance of text on a daily basis: news, emails, tweets,
feeds, books, papers, articles, technical literature and pleasure readings. But our reading strategy has mainly remained
the same. Formal reading education stopped after graduatingfrom primary school. From here, individual differences develop based on the amount and type of what people read [23],i.e. the development of reading practices.
Naturally people develop their innate reading, skimming andskipping strategies. Speed reading techniques are a muchdiscussed topic that has gained many followers over the last
decades. Studies conducted are often disputed, but agree ona natural trade-off between reading speed and comprehension
levels. Various techniques are taught by books and seminars
that allegedly enable speed reading, such as [5]. Rapid Serial
Visual Presentation (RSVP) has been proposed as a reading
technique to push a reader through a text by displaying single
or groups of words sequentially in one focal point. Recent
Web apps have spurred excitement around the prospect ofachieving higher speed reading by effectively reducing eye
movements (saccades). Other common techniques include
the use of a kinetic stimulus (such as a moving hand, penor finger) to guide a reader consistently across lines of text.

Author Keywords

Speed reading; RSVP; kinetic stimulus; mental load;
comprehension

To investigate whether such techniques can be applied toreading on electronic devices and to explore their feasibility, we assessed two stimuli: 1) the RSVP method by using
the open source framework Squirt1 and 2) a kinetic stimulus
in form of a dynamic text underline effect (Fig.1a). In two
consecutive user studies we evaluated these approaches according to effects on reading speed, comprehension, mentalload, eye movement data and subjective feedback. First, we
conducted a lab study in which we collected data about eye
movements, mental load and comprehension levels of 24 participants. In the second study, we collected subjective feedback data from 108 participants in an online experiment comprising reading text with both stimuli.

ACM Classification Keywords

H.5.2 User Interfaces: Style guides

General Terms

Human Factors; Design; Measurement.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others thanACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise,or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specificpermission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.

The contribution of this paper comprises the 1) descriptionof applying speed reading techniques to reading on electronic

AH ’15, March 09 - 11, 2015, Singapore, Singapore
Copyright 2015 ACM 978-1-4503-3349-8/15/03 $15.00

1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2735711.2735796

117

http://squirt.io/ (last accessed 13.02.2015)

devices, 2) the introduction of a kinetic stimulus to actively
increase users’ reading speed, and 3) an investigation of theeffects of RSVP and the kinetic stimulus on text comprehension, mental load, eye movements and subjective perception.

In the following we point out related work that inspired thiswork and introduce basic speed reading approaches as they
are applied by speed readers and commercially taught.

recall more idea clusters than normal readers, but less detailabout each idea. Other studies on the Wood method reported
that average comprehension levels went down as reading rateincreased [1, 3, 7]. Carpenter and Just [14], on the other hand,show that training speed reading can increase the comprehension level on higher level information even on faster reading
speeds. Yet, the increases also depend on text types and difficulty. They show that easy texts can be read very fast without
loss in comprehension.

Cognitive effects of reading

Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP)

Stanovich and Cunningham [23] applied the ”Matthew effect” to reading, which describes the concept of a rich-getricher and poor-get-poorer phenomenon. Hence, poor readers tend to expose themselves to less text than their moreskilled peers, thereby increasingly corrupting their reading
skill level. They showed that much of what we read directly
influences our language skills and the size of our vocabulary.
Boosted language skills again contribute to the developmentof higher cognitive functions like reasoning and judgement[17] and also lead to a greater general knowledge about theworld. Pronin et al. [19], in a series of experiments, linked theacceleration of thought processes to joy-enhancing effects,
rapid reading being one of those methods used for accelerating thought. Hence, we started looking into ways to help
people read faster and more.

RSVP, a term coined by Forster [4], is an experimental modelfor examining temporal characteristics of attention. Thismethod entails users to focus on visual items being continuously presented in the same place. High information transfer rates are thus possible because the need for saccadic eye
movements is eliminated. For electronic devices RSVP allows space to be traded for time and hence can be used tosupport information browsing and search tasks on small displays [2]. However, Intraub [11] found that recognition memory suffers dramatically as the presentation duration for eachstimulus goes down. Masson [15] reported reading studies using RSVP, in which participants were often able to correctly
outline the essence of a passage without necessarily recalling specific words. Schotter et al. [21] on the other handpresented findings of how repressing regressions in reading,which RSVP effectively does, hinders text comprehension,
especially when dealing with ambiguous sentence structures.
Hedin and Lindgren [10] examined reading on mobile devices
using RSVP in regard to reading comprehension and efficiency. In a user study they compared reading with RSVP vs.
reading with scrolling using different reading speeds. They
found that with RSVP speed and comprehension is high, butthat users are generally uncomfortable with the technique.

BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK

Increasing reading efficiency (speed reading)Commercial tools facilitating reading on the web include, forexample, Readability2 : used as a browser plugin it cleansup web pages and displays content in a most readable manner. Another example is the BeeLine Reader3 , which aims
at smoother line break transitions by guiding the user’s eye
through a color code from one line to the next. While thesetools may facilitate reading on electronic screens they do notnecessarily nudge readers to increase their reading speed.

There are different modes of RSVP as described by Spence[22], however for reading activities we focus on the sequential presentation of words in one spot, as it was used more
recently by the commercial application spritz4 as a text presentation technique on mobile phones and smart watches.
Georgiev [6] investigated reading speeds on mobile devices
compared to reading text on a PC screen and on paper using different methods for text presentation, including RSVP.
Top reading speeds were achieved on computer screens witha font size of 14pt and on paper. In our work we apply thesefindings and focus on the effects of RSVP and the kinetic
stimulus with the facilitation of speed reading in mind.

Evelyn Wood, creator of the Evelyn Wood Method [5] andone of the pioneers of speed reading, was supposedly capableof reading 6000 words a minute. Techniques she developed
and applied were 1) reading groups of words rather than single words, therefore she needed to train her peripheral perception, 2) avoiding involuntary rereading of passages and 3)
using a finger or pointer to trace lines of text while eliminating sub-vocalization (i.e. reading out loud in reader’s head).
Wood noticed that the sweeping motion of her hand across apage caught her eyes’ attention and helped them move moresmoothly. Hence, the hand or finger could be used as a pacer.
This insight inspired us to design an equivalent for electronic
devices in form of a kinetic stimulus.

SYSTEM

We implemented two stimuli with the goal of increasing reading speed by guiding the user’s eye. We built our prototypes
with a combination of HTML5, CSS and JavaScript to makeour system not only run in the lab, but also on the web tomake it accessible to a broad pool of study participants.

Hansen [8] reports on a series of studies on reading comprehension with rapid readers trained in the Evelyn Woodmethod. Her results showed that rapid readers were superior
in comprehension of relational aspects of text and were able
to recall significantly more information than normal readers
due to the fact that they were able to read the material morethan once given a time constraint. Especially, they tended to
2
3

The first stimulus is modeled after the idea of swiping theuser’s finger or a pen across a text in order to keep a constant

http://www.readability.com/ (last accessed 13.02.2015)
http://www.beelinereader.com/ (last accessed 13.02.2015)4118

http://www.spritzinc.com/ (last accessed 13.02.2015)

(a) Kinetic stimulus: A moving line as underline effect. (b) RSVP: sequentially displaying words in a focal point.
Figure 1. Reading with presented stimuli during lab and online study.

reading flow [5]. Initially, we had several prototypes of stimuli suggesting a constant motion across the screen. By conducting pilot studies and questioning independent researchers
we decided to use the technique of dynamically underlining
lines of text as kinetic stimulus for the user study. Using
the html5 canvas element we implemented this dynamic line
placed under a line of text that moves from left to right ina predetermined speed (Fig. 1a). Hereby not the entire line
moves, but the left beginning of the line moves to the rightend only underlining words that are still up for reading. This
is intended to keep the eyes focused on the current line andavoid jumps of the eye between lines as well as regressions.
Once the stimulus reaches the end of one line, the next line
is underlined and the stimulus starts to run again. The entire
text is visible at all times and the stimulus moves from left toright and line to line.

LAB STUDY WITH EYE TRACKER

First, we carried out a lab study to assess the effect of spedup kinetic and RSVP stimuli on reading performance of users.
We recruited 24 participants (22 male, 2 female) with an average age of 23 (SD=2.28) years. We reached out to potential
participants through university mailing lists and social networks. Most participants were students all of which indicatedGerman to be their first language. Five participants indicatedprevious exposure to speed reading techniques.
Methodology

We designed the study using a between subject measure design with the reading stimuli as the only independent variable.
The stimuli comprised two levels: kinetic and RSVP. Participants were asked to read four rounds of text with one corresponding stimulus, for each stimulus condition we had 12
participants. As dependent variables we measured text comprehension and mental load using the NASA-TLX questionnaire [9] after each round of reading. Using the eye tracker
we also recorded average fixation durations and number offixations as well as regressions calculated from saccades.

The second stimulus is modeled after the RSVP method
where one word is displayed at a time at a focal point. We
based our implementation on the javascript open source codeof Squirt. It basically takes as input a text and a reading speed
in words per minute (wpm) and displays this text word byword in the middle of the screen (see Fig.1b). A blue letter marks the position where the reader’s eye is supposed tofocus on. This letter roughly marks the first third of the character sequence, since in western cultures the perceptual spanis skewed to the right, hence we perceive more letters to theright than to the left of our focus point [12]. The mark shouldsuggest the eyes to keep their focus on this focal area. The
script analyzes the text upfront and dynamically assigns viewing durations to each word, hence words with more characters
are presented slightly longer. After a slight delay to prepare
the reader, the presentation of words is quickly increased to
its target speed. The same goes for words at the end of a sentence to indicate the beginning of a new one. The entire text
is not displayed upfront and after finishing cycling throughthe text, the application closes its text window.

Apparatus

The study was conducted using the system described above.
To record participants’ eye movements we used the stationary SMI RED250 eye tracker with a sampling rate of 120Hz.
For study purposes we integrated the browser-based prototype into a task sequence as defined in the study softwareof the eye tracker. To ensure the validity of measuring text
comprehension we used an official text set from the TestDaF
institute5 , which focuses on the development and applicationof tests to assess language proficiency of German as a foreign
language. Each text comprised on average 583 (SD=19.8)
words and came with a list of 10 questions for measuring thereaders’ text comprehension.
Procedure

After explaining the purpose of the study, the participant
was asked to sign the consent form. We then randomly assigned the participant to one of the two conditions. We calibrated the eye tracker and conducted a test to assure the eye
tracker worked properly, after which the actual experiment
was started. In the initial phase we provided a text, which
participants were asked to read as baseline condition without using any of our stimuli in order to calculate participants’

After a series of pilot studies where we raised readers’ normal reading speed by varying amounts using both stimuli, we
settled on an increase to 150%, since it seemed both significant and feasible. To assess the effectiveness of the system
we conducted two user studies: 1) a lab study with 24 participants and a stationary eye tracker and 2) an online study tocollect subjective feedback on the two speed reading stimuli.

5119https://www.testdaf.de/ (last accessed 13.02.2015)

first and fourth round within each stimulus. The t-test revealed no significant differences neither for the kinetic (number of fixations: t(11)=-.07, p=.95, fixation duration: t(11)=1.50, p=.16), nor for RSVP (number of fixations: t(11)=-.08,
p=.94, fixation duration: t(11)=.49, p=.63) stimulus. For the
kinetic stimulus’ first round, the number of fixations was 379(SD=66.4) with an average fixation duration of 241.25 ms(SD=29.82), for the fourth round, the number of fixations was
379.92 (SD=66.1) with an average fixation duration of 248.9
ms (SD=36.40). During the first round of the RSVP condition, the number of fixations was 118 (SD=78.2) with anaverage fixation duration of 1044.07 ms (SD=352.22). In the
fourth round, the number of fixations was 119.42 (SD=49.1)
with an average fixation duration of 996.1 ms (SD=385.5).

regular reading speed (wpm). In the following, the participant read four texts in four rounds with 150% of her regular
wpm rate. At the end of each round she was asked to answer 10 comprehension questions and fill in the NASA-TLX
questionnaire. The study, including a short debriefing session, took approximately 60 minutes per participant.
Results

In the following we present both quantitative and qualitative
results.
Mental Load

We analyzed differences in mental load between the twogroups using the RAW-TLX scores. The homogeneity ofvariances was not violated (p>.05). The independent t-test
revealed no significant difference in the mental load between
the two stimuli in any round (t(22)=.889, p=.38). The average mental load across all rounds for the kinetic stimulus was
64.80 (SD=4.81) and for the RSVP was 67.41 (SD=4.35).
Further, we investigated how the mental load changed between the first and last round within each stimulus. For the
kinetic, the t-test showed that the mental load decreased significantly from the first round (M=74.41, SD=11.18) to thelast round (M=61.75, SD=19.7) , t(11)=3.22, p=.008, r=.70.
The effect size estimate indicates that the change in the mental load created by using the kinetic stimulus was a large andtherefore substantial effect. No significant difference were
found for the RSVP stimulus (t(11)=1.72, p=.11). The average mental load for the first round was 70.75 (SD=8.89) andfor the last round was 63.58 (SD=19.30).

We also evaluated the regression information collected while
reading the texts using the kinetic stimulus between first andfourth round. We define regressions as eye movements opposite to the reading direction. While regressions are negligible when using RSVP, in normal reading they generallyindicate re-reading of words or entire sentences and hence
slow down the reading process overall. The t-test revealed
the regression decreased significantly from the first round(M=16.42, SD=11.15) to the last round (M=11.25, SD=7.1),
t(11)=2.877, p=.01, r=.65. The effect size reveals that using
the kinetic stimulus has a substantial effect on eye regressions
while reading text.
Qualitative Assessment

Taking a look at scanpath visualizations of the eye tracking
data of participants using different stimuli we notice some interesting differences. In scanpath visualizations each eye fixation is represented by a circle. The longer the duration of the
fixation, the bigger the circle’s radius. A line represents a saccade between two fixations. Fig.2a shows the scanpath of aparticipant freely reading text without any of our two stimuli
present. Fixation durations are quite variable and a numberof line jumps as well as regressions can be noticed. Fig.2b
depicts the scanpath of that same participant directly thereafter when using the kinetic stimulus at 150% of her initiallymeasured reading speed. Fixations seem more widely spread,which is probably due to the nature of the kinetic stimulus
moving across all text. Fig.2c shows the scanpath of a participant reading with the RSVP stimulus. Obviously, far fewer,
but longer fixations on the central focus are presented.

Comprehension

We compared the number of correct answers for each text
to assess users’ text comprehension. The statistical analysis between the two stimuli revealed no significant difference(t(22)=.62, p=.40). The average number of correct answers
using the kinetic stimulus was 5.48 (SD=1.63) and using the
RSVP stimulus was 5.18 (SD=1.72). Further, we investigatedthe comprehension scores between the first and fourth roundwithin each stimulus. For both stimuli the t-test revealed
that comprehension increased significantly (kinetic stimulus:t(11)=2.80, p=.01, r=.65; RSVP stimulus: t(11)=2.75, p=.01,
r=.64). The effect size estimates indicate a large and substantial effect. The average correct answer using the kinetic
stimulus increased from 5.25 (SD=1.48) in the first round to
6.08 (SD=1.67) in the final round. Using the RSVP stimulus,
the average number of correct answers was increased from4.58 (SD=1.431) to 6.0 (SD=1.65).

Discussion

Looking at the significantly decreasing strain on mental load
after using the kinetic stimulus for a while, we conclude astrong learning effect while using this method. The same
applies to the significant increases in comprehension. Initially, users seem challenged by having a stimulus dictate
them where to read and at which speed, but they adjust relatively quickly, i.e. over the course of four trials. We further
observed significantly fewer regressions after using the kinetic stimulus for a while. The eyes seem to adjust to following the stimulus and regressions are effectively reduced. The
fact that, in accordance with fewer regressions, we also measured increasing comprehension levels contradicts findings ofSchotter et al. [21], which is probably due to the nature of

Fixations & Regressions

We further analyzed the fixation and regression informationcollected by the eye tracker during the study. Fixations canbe a measure to assess engagement or difficulties in extracting information [13]. The average number of fixations for the
kinetic stimulus was 381.31 (SD=63.22) and for the RSVP
stimulus was 119.73 (SD=66.98). Such a significant difference between the two stimuli was expected due to the nature of RSVP where the user focuses on a single point insteadof moving eyes across text. Further, we assessed the number of fixations and the average fixation duration between the120

(a) Free reading.

(b) Reading with kinetic stimulus.

(c) Reading with RSVP stimulus.

Figure 2. Scanpath visualizations of eye tracking data for participants reading freely, exposed to the kinetic and RSVP stimulus.

the text types used. Schotter et al. deliberately focused on
ambiguous sentence structures in their studies. When designing such studies it is crucial to not only pay attention to thenature of the texts used, but also to the difficulty of assessing
text comprehension. We opted for a solution in which the text
came with pre-defined comprehension tests as they are usedin assessing language proficiency, hence requires not only literal translation, but also transfer skills. When reviewing thetest results we realized these type of questions were anything
but trivial. However, we are positive that considering certain text types, comprehension goals and given that users take
into account a practice phase, using such stimuli for readingis feasible.

as well as a consent form with a basic demographic questionnaire and a final survey to collect more general feedback.
Procedure

On the landing page of the online study participants wereasked to select their preferred language suggesting, i.e. English and German. After, they were redirected to a consent
form explaining the background of the study and where they
could enter their demographics including age, gender andprofession. The first step comprised the assessment of general reading speed: participants were asked to fully read aparagraph of 521 words taken from ”Alice in Wonderland”
by L. Carroll. Completion time was measured from when
they clicked on ‘Start’, on which the actual text appeared,
until they clicked on ‘Finished’. From this measurement wecalculated their reading speed in words per minute (wpm),
which was taken as baseline speed. From there we randomly
assigned both stimulus and text order and increased participants’ reading speed by 150% to a maximum of 600wpm.
This cap seemed necessary to ensure that especially the RSVP
condition did not completely overburden readers who might
have read the initial text for speed assessment in overly rapidmanner.

ONLINE STUDY

To collect more in-depth data on user perception aspects ofthe presented stimuli we conducted an online study targeted
at a broader audience. 108 participants (72 male, 34 female,
2 without gender indication) between 12 and 69 years old(M=27.9, SD=8.3) fully completed the study. We disseminated the study across university mailing lists, social networks and personal contacts in other research facilities acrossEurope and the U.S.. 78 completed the study indicating German as their first language, 30 in English. Participants’ background ranged from students to engineers, business-related
professions and lawyers.

In the next step, for each stimulus one paragraph of text wasread and 5 questions were answered using a 5-point Likert
scale (1=strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). Questions targeted subjective perceptions of text comprehension, reading
comfort, exhaustion by reading, support in speeding up reading rates and perceived reading duration. After the last condition participants were directed to a final survey with three
free-text questions where they could state their general preference for any of the stimuli. The questions included for what
type of texts they could imagine using the presented reading
techniques for and on what kind of devices. In the last text
box we asked for general feedback and comments.

Methodology

The study followed a repeated-measure design, so all participants were exposed to both conditions: RSVP and kinetic as
independent variables. For each stimulus participants wereasked to read a short paragraph of text comprising 284 words
each. As dependent variables we collected subjective feedback in form of a Likert scale and free-text survey. The texts
used for the study were taken from literature (”The Trial” by
F. Kafka) and from a popular blog to ensure text diversity. We
provided both English and German versions, self-selected byparticipants. Average time to complete the online study was
M=8.5 (SD=4.8) minutes, variations depending on individuals’ baseline reading speed and the time they took for fillingin the surveys.

Results

Study participants on average reached 386 (SD=194) wpm
during the speed assessment task. Hence, for the study weincreased the stimuli speed on average to about 512 (SD=107)
wpm. 42 participants (38.9%) were capped at 600wpm.
Figure 3 comprises the results of the list of questions we
asked after each stimulus condition. The Wilcoxon SignedRank test revealed that there is a significant difference in rating of subjective text comprehension (Z=-2.18, p=.03), speed
reading support (Z=-4.15, p=.0001), reading comfort (Z=3.04, p=.002), and perceived duration (Z=-4.09, p=.001). In

Apparatus

We used again the basic web implementation of the stimuli
as described above. Additionally, we used a server running
PHP as backend to collect and store the corresponding data.
We designed a survey which was applied after each condition121

every word.” Similarly, another one stated that there needs
to be the chance to get an oversight of the text while reading. Further, the techniques should allow skipping entire sentences or paragraphs. We also had participants who complained about the slowness of the stimulus, since we had acap on 600wpm for study purposes.

these four aspects RSVP was rated higher than the kinetic
stimulus. The rating of exhaustion showed no significant difference.
In the final survey 42.6% participants indicated to prefer the
RSVP stimulus, 36.1% preferred kinetic, whereas 21.3% indicated no preference.

Numerous ideas to improve on the stimuli were brought forward, too. For example, the kinetic stimulus should be used
for types of text where readers are inclined to easily digressfrom (e.g. mandatory texts/emails at work), especially for“long passages I just need to get through”. Another participant imagined the idea of using a kinetic stimulus for collective reading as well as on public displays. Further, it could
be useful on large screens with lots of text as some sort of“reading guide”. Other application scenarios for the kinetic
stimulus included highlighting and re-reading of importantsentences/take-aways. RSVP on the other hand could be used
for one-line ad screens at the bottom of cellphone screensor for displaying stock prices. Some participants mentionedthat difficult words would need longer display time than others. One participant stated RSVP to be potentially useful for
proofreading text.

Text & Device Types

For the final survey of the study participants were asked tofill in for which types of text and devices they could imagine using these stimuli. For each stimulus multiple text anddevice types could be named, so that, in total, we collected
106 recommendations for text types and 121 recommendations for device types. To identify preferred types of text
and devices for each stimulus, two researchers independently
analyzed the free texts provided by participants and categorized possible types. Then, they crosschecked their categories
and agreed on a set of text types and device types. In total 4 types of text, namely: short texts, books, technical literature and news were derived. The top three types of text
participants mentioned for the kinetic stimulus being usefulfor were: books (30%), technical literature (23%), and news
(15%). For RSVP on the other hand short texts were ranked
highest (31%), then books (25%) and news (20%).

Many comments focused on the issue of the speed of the stimuli in particular as well as increasing reading speed in general.
One participant indicated the kinetic stimulus being ‘too fastcompared with my comfortable speed zone’. A great number of users mentioned that they would appreciate using thestimuli in a slower speed. Some felt especially pressured by
the RSVP stimulus, as if “being in a challenge”. Concluding,
one participant stated “reading is more than simply a speedytransfer of data. Any ‘quality reading’ - at whatever speed- requires that the reader first understand the reading, next
remember it, then analyze or intellectualize it from various
reference points - in other words, think about the reading”.
Whereas another one summarized his comments with “Reading should be for fun, and not a race”.

Regarding device types that may be fit for using the two stimuli for, 6 types were identified in total: smartwatch, smartphone, tablet, e-reader,head-mounted display and PC/laptop.
The top three device types mentioned for the kinetic stimulus were e-reader (47%), tablet (45%) and PC/laptop (34%).
Mentioned to be fit for RSVP were smartphone (68%), smartwatch (27%) and tablet (17%).
Qualitative Feedback

Looking at the general comments and feedback participants
left in form of free text, we get a broader picture of subjective
perception of using such sped-up stimuli for reading. Many
participants doubted to have fully understood the texts, butalso stated that for unimportant text little comprehension may
be acceptable. Others indicated having lost the context because of a moment of inattention or due to the fast speed of
the stimulus. At least with the kinetic stimulus some wereable to catch up again, but with the costs of having missed
some details in between. Many participants found the kinetic
stimulus initially confusing while one of the problems with
RSVP seemed to be a lack of sense of how far into the text thereader already was and how much more there was to come.
One participant stated “the surrounding sentence is missing”,
which shares the general assessment of others in the difficulty
to put the single words into the overall context. However, one
participant stated that sequential reading turns boring stories
into interesting ones, because she found “fun in being challenged not to miss the context of a single word”.

Discussion

As can be seen from the general comments left by participants, the stimuli triggered some mixed feelings in user perception. Whereas in terms of measures the RSVP stimulus was clearly preferred to the kinetic stimulus, comments
mostly revolved around the feasibility of the kinetic approach,given some sort of user control. However, findings seem toconvey various application scenarios for both stimuli. In thatsense the kinetic stimulus was generally preferred to be used
for rather long passages that require a certain amount of concentration. The RSVP stimulus on the other hand seems to be
more suitable for short texts.
Further, users seem to prefer the kinetic stimulus when reading on sufficiently large displays as compared to RSVP, which
they find feasible for small displays like on smartwatches or
smartphones. Tablets seem to be the type of device that splits
the categories: in case of larger available screen estate, RSVP
was preferred; in case of smaller, the kinetic technique.This
indicates that reading using two complementary devices as
demonstrated by Piazza et al. [18] can make sense.

One participant expressed her desire to go through different
paragraphs with different reading speeds as to use her imagination in crucial parts of a story. There was quite some complain about the lack of manual control: “The kinetic method
would be reasonable if it had some sort of ‘pause’ functionality”. One comment stated “Speed reading is not about reading122

ControlAs we have learned from the qualitative feedback, it is crucial for users to remain in control over their choice of reading technique as well as over their current reading speed.
Hence, possibilities to stop, start and pause stimuli need to
be provided. Further, speed reading does not necessarily imply reading word by word. Hence, stimuli should take into
account the users’ inclination to skip words or entire paragraphs.
Retaining oversight

What comes naturally for conventional books is a challenge
for electronic reading interfaces: a sense of size, position andoversight. When reading through an actual book, the page location and arrangement conveys a feeling of the whereaboutsof the reader in the story. In ebooks, for example, this intuition is lost, even more so when using the RSVP stimulus as
we have seen. Since a single eye fixation provides a view ofthe world that is roughly elliptical (about 200 degrees wide
and 130 degrees high) [12], we can us this knowledge to adjust the number of words being displayed at once and makeentire word groups graspable with one fixation, instead of displaying only one word at a time. Further, for text comprehension it seems crucial to be aware of the context of a word,
sentence, even of the entire paragraph and hence adequate
features should be provided.

Figure 3. Subjective feedback on perceptions of text comprehension,
reading comfort, exhaustion by reading, support in speeding up reading,and perceived reading duration using the kinetic and RSVP stimuli.

Obviously, speed was based on one single reading pass to determine the initial wpm rate. One participant stated he “didn’t
pay much attention to the text during the speed assessment
and hence skipped some parts” which lead to a very highreading speed throughout the rest of the study. Further, thesereading techniques are not suitable for all types of readings.
It is generally difficult to decide on an appropriate selectionof text passages. As the comments of some participants show,
there are great differences in text complexity or readers’ background knowledge for that matter, as for some, certain paragraphs were already known. Further, not all of the participants were native German or English speakers and thus were
overwhelmed by being pressured to increase reading speed ina foreign language.

Context-dependent variability of techniques

IMPLICATIONS

Reading is a highly complex psychomotor skill. There is agreat variety of factors that influence reading performance,such as the reader’s general background knowledge, familiarity with the language or with the type of text, and also eyemobility, attention span and current level of fatigue. Learning about users’ reading habits can yield great adaption variability. Also, taking into account bio-feedback to dynamically pause stimuli or adjust reading speed may be feasible.
Oliveira and Guimares [16] presented a tool to assess mental
workload from electroencephalographic (EEG) signals andadjust reading parameters, such as text size, contrast and presentation speed in real-time. In case of high mental workload
text presentation can be slowed down to reduce discomfort
and on the other hand accelerated to make use of available
mental resources. Further, eye tracking can be used to takebio-feedback into account and dynamically pause stimuli or
adjust reading speed in real-time. As one study participant
stated: “the kinetic [stimulus] could be a lot better if it were

Obviously, different types of text require the reader to use
different reading speeds. In such cases reading speed candepend on various factors, such as linguistic complexity or
density of content, but also on the reading goals. In the firstcase, extracting language semantics could help as well as using reading models, such as [20], to dynamically adjust the
speed of the stimulus. In the second case, readers shouldhave the means to either push through a text or be allowed
to skip certain parts where 100% comprehension may not be
required, but skimming is acceptable. Further, device types
should be taken into account since display size is an important factor for the choice of stimuli.
Taking into account user diversity

We set out with the goal to assess the feasibility of applying
speed reading techniques to reading activities on electronic
devices. Our qualitative analysis shows that the act of enforcing higher reading speeds seems to have an alienating effect on users, especially when reading naturally comes with
the idea of pleasure and relaxation. However, despite initial
discomfort we observed quick learning effects that lowered
mental load and increased comprehension rates, which naturally go down when initially using such techniques. Thesefindings encourage us to look into how such techniques canbe further developed to lower the entry barrier for users to,
slowly, but not drastically, pick up and increase their regularreading speed. Therefore, we identified a number of issues
that need to be considered when designing such techniques:123

9. Hart, S. G., and Staveland, L. E. Development of
nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical andtheoretical research. Advances in psychology 52 (1988),
139–183.

combined with gaze detection – this would allow me to flip
back and re-process a sentence that I had missed. [...] It could
auto adjust the speed, rather than just ploughing on regardless”.

10. Hedin, B., and Lindgren, E. A comparison ofpresentation methods for reading on mobile phones.
Distributed Systems Online, IEEE 8, 6 (2007), 2–2.

CONCLUSION

We evaluated two approaches to increase reading speed onelectronic devices by applying a kinetic and an RSVP stimulus to text. Therefore, we implemented an animated line thatmoves through the text as well as an RSVP stimulus, eachmoving at 150% of the reader’s regular speed. In two user
studies we collected quantitative and qualitative data on theeffects and feasibility of such stimuli. Despite users being
initially alienated by the approach, results show quick learning effects in adjusting reading speed, lowering mental load
and increasing text comprehension levels. We concluded witha set of design guidelines for applications using such reading techniques: therefore users should be able to control their
speed and mode of reading and be allowed to retain oversight.
Readers’ individual preferences and reading goals should betaken into account as well as the different types of text andparticularities of devices. In the future we envision electronic
devices to be able to detect the reader’s skill level, automatically assess the pecularities of text types and adjust the text
display accordingly. Based on that, such systems could offer
a variety of reading strategies to facilitate reading tasks.

11. Intraub, H. Presentation rate and the representation ofbriefly glimpsed pictures in memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning andMemory 6, 1 (1980), 1.
12. Irwin, D. E. Fixation location and fixation duration as
indices of cognitive processing. The interface of
language, vision, and action: Eye movements and thevisual world (2004), 105–134.
13. Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. Eye fixations andcognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology 8, 4 (1976),
441–480.
14. Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. The psychology ofreading and language comprehension. Allyn & Bacon,
1987.
15. Masson, M. E. Conceptual processing of text during
skimming and rapid sequential reading. Memory &Cognition 11, 3 (1983), 262–274.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

16. Oliveira, I., and Guimarães, N. A tool for mental
workload evaluation and adaptation. In Proceedings ofthe 4th Augmented Human International Conference,
AH ’13, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 138–141.

We thank our study participants as well as Dominik Weber,Rufat Rzayev and Thomas Kosch for their active support.
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Futureand Emerging Technologies (FET) programme within the 7th
Framework Programme for Research of the European Commission, under FET grant number: 612933 (RECALL).

17. Olson, D. R. Intelligence and literacy: The relationships
between intelligence and the technologies ofrepresentation and communication. Practicalintelligence (1986), 338–360.

REFERENCES

1. Carver, R. P. Sense and nonsense in speed reading.
Revrac Publications, 1971.

18. Piazza, T., Fjeld, M., Ramos, G., Yantac, A., and Zhao,
S. Holy smartphones and tablets, batman!: mobileinteraction’s dynamic duo. In Proceedings of the 11th
Asia Pacific Conference on Computer Human
Interaction, ACM (2013), 63–72.

2. de Bruijn, O., and Spence, R. Rapid serial visualpresentation: a space-time trade-off in information
presentation. In Advanced visual interfaces (2000),
189–192.

19. Pronin, E., Jacobs, E., and Wegner, D. M. Psychologicaleffects of thought acceleration. Emotion 8, 5 (2008),597.

3. Ehrlich, E. Opinions differ on speed reading. NEA
Journal 52 (1963), 43–44.
4. Forster, K. I. Visual perception of rapidly presented
word sequences of varying complexity. Perception &Psychophysics 8, 4 (1970), 215–221.

20. Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. The ez
reader model of eye-movement control in reading:Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and brain
sciences 26, 04 (2003), 445–476.

5. Frank, S. D. Remember Everything You Read: The
Evelyn Wood 7-Day Speed Reading & Learning
Program. HarperCollins, 1992.

21. Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., and Rayner, K. Dont believe
what you read (only once) comprehension is supported
by regressions during reading. Psychological science(2014), 0956797614531148.

6. Georgiev, T. Investigation of the user’s text reading
speed on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Computer Systems andTechnologies, ACM (2012), 329–336.

22. Spence, R. Rapid, serial and visual: a presentation
technique with potential. Information visualization 1, 1
(2002), 13–19.

7. Graf, R. G. Speed reading: Remember the tortoise.
Psychology Today 7, 7 (1973), 112–13.
8. Hansen, D. M. A discourse structure analysis of thecomprehension of rapid readers.

23. Stanovich, K., and Cunningham, A. What reading does
for the mind. Journal of Direct Instructions 1, 2 (2001),
137–149.
124