according to this study how the studied fast readers have been selected?:
Sensory and Cognitive Determinants of Reading Speed
MARK D. JACKSON AND JAMES L. MCCLELLAND
University of California, San Diego
Fast readers and average readers were tested on four tasks. Neither peripheral letter
identification nor susceptibility of foveal letter identification to patterned masking differed
between the two groups. However, fast readers appear to pick up more information per
fixation on structured textual material, as indexed by a forced-choice test. Furthermore,
the average fast reader had a greater span of apprehension for unrelated elements. It appears
that faster readers are able to encode more of the contents of each fixation, whether or not
higher order linguistic structure is present. The results are inconsistent with the view that
reading speed is dependent solely on the reader's ability to infer or fdl in missing information.
Since researchers began studying the process
of reading, the problem of determining why
some people can read faster than others has
attracted considerable interest. Although
numerous researchers have looked into the
matter or speculated upon it, there is little
indication of any success in isolating the
processes and factors which determine reading
speed. The present investigation represents a
first step toward that goal. It is our hope that
isolating the processes or factors which
contribute to reading speed will lead to a
clearer understanding of the reading process.
Ordinarily, reading is defined as the acquisition of the intended meaning from written
symbols (McLaughlin, 1969). However, the
term "reading" has been used to refer to a
number of different processes. People can
This research was partially supported by grant
No. PHS MH 15828-06 to the Center for Human
Information Processing, University of California,
San Diego, and by Academic Senate Research Grant
967.5 to the second author. We would like to thank
our colleagues Elizabeth Ashbrook, Lynn Cooper,
Robert Glushko, William Lao, Elissa Newport,
and Albert Stevens for discussions of all phases of
the project in the CMN research seminar, Robert
Glushko and Robert Wisher for comments on the
manuscript, and Ronald Mead for helping to run
subjects.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark D.
Jackson, Department of Psychology, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, 92037.
Copyright © 1975 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
process text differently depending on their
reason for reading (McConkie, Rayner, &
Wilson, 1973), and will not necessarily acquire
the intended meaning of the material being
read, even though their eyes may stop within
a few degrees of visual angle of every word.
While a number of techniques have been
developed which purport to increase the user's
reading speed through the use of skimming,
rhythmic finger sweeping, rapid visual search,
or some combination of these methods, many
of these techniques do not permit the reader
to acquire an adequate understanding of the
material read (Taylor, 1965) and consequently
do not constitute reading as defined here.
We will restrict this investigation to a consideration of processes which are adequate to
give the reader a high level of comprehension
of what he has read, as indexed by a strict
comprehension test.
The earliest studies of the reading process
(cf. Huey, 1908) indicate that reading takes
place during fixations or pauses of the eye,
separated by very brief eye movements or
saccades. Reading speed is, therefore, dependent on the number and duration of the
fixations per unit of text. Taylor (1965),
summarizing the results of several eye
movement studies, noted that more effective
readers make fewer fixations per page. These
findings suggest that faster readers are able to
565
566 DETERMINANTS OF READING SPEED
deal with a larger amount of text during
each fixation. In support of this view, Gilbert
(1959) found a positive correlation between
speed of reading and the ability to report
the words contained in briefly presented
phrases; the performance of the fastest 25 70
of the readers was significantly better than the
performance of the slowest 25 ~ of the readers.
The problem is to explain why faster readers
can identify more words correctly from each
fixation. We will distinguish two general
possibilities: The faster reader has superior
sensory processes which make available to
higher level processes more of the visual
information on the page at each fixation; or
the fast reader has an advantage at a cognitive
level, allowing him to make superior use of
information made available by the sensory
processes. Although reading is primarily a
cognitive task, at least two sensory factors
could contribute to an increase in the amount
of visual information available at each
fixation: (1) The number of words recognized
from a briefly presented phrase may depend
on the length of time that information is
available for processing. This, in turn, may
depend on the temporal resolution of the
perceptual system, since each fixation is
preceded and followed by other fixations which
provide pre- and post-exposure masking.
Hence, if the temporal resolution of the
rapid reader's perceptual system is superior,
he should be able to read more at one glance.
To test the system's temporal resolution we
measured the threshold for correctly identifying a single letter presented in the fovea
under conditions of pre- and post-exposure
masking by a patterned mask. This task will
be called the single letter threshold task.
(2) Fast readers may identify more words
from each fixation because they are able to
pick up information from a wider spatial
area. Thus, the degree to which information
can be extracted from peripheral areas may
well be an important determiner of reading
speed. To measure the size of our subjects'
spatial span, we presented pairs of letters
separated at various distances from the center
of fixation and tested accuracy of report.
This task is called the letter separation
task.
Although it is certainly possible that fast
readers have greater sensory processing capabilities, the major determiners of reading
speed are probably more cognitive in nature.
Two possibilities to consider are: (1) Fast
readers may be able to apprehend a larger
number of units--be they letters, words, or
phrases from the information available from
a single fixation. To measure the span of
apprehension, free of influences of higher
level language structure, we measured the
number of letters which fast and average
readers could recall from a briefly presented
string of unrelated consonants. This task will
be called the unrelated letter task. (2) Faster
readers may be better able to use sensory
information in conjunction with knowledge
of linguistic structure in forming a representation of the contents of each fixation. If this,
and only this, ability differentiates fast
readers from slower readers, none of the
tasks thus far described would reveal any
advantage for fast readers, even though the
fast readers would show an advantage of
reporting the content of the structured
phrases and sentences used by Gilbert
(1959). Within the domain of this possibility,
there are two quite distinct subpossibilities:
(a) For all readers, only a small amount of
visual feature information is picked up on
each fixation. What differentiates fast readers
from slower readers is the fast reader's
ability to fill in or guess the missing parts of
the message from knowledge of linguistic
structure and contextual cues. (b) For all
readers, a great deal of information is made
available to higher level cognitive processes
on each trial. What differentiates the fast
reader from the slower reader is the fast
reader's superior ability to integrate that
information into an organized conceptual
structure with the aid of knowledge of
linguistic structure and contextual cues.
JACKSON AND MCCLELLAND 567
Many researchers have taken the position that
the faster reader simply guesses better than
the slower reader from sparse visual information (Smith, 1971; Hochberg & Brooks,
1970; Mattingly, 1972; Goodman, 1970;
Mackworth, 1972; Morton, 1964; Schiffman,
1972).
Any model of reading which attributes
differences in reading speed solely to differential guessing from context must predict that
in a recognition task in which context cannot
be relied upon to facilitate correct guessing,
performance of fast readers should equal
performance of slower readers, all else being
equal. The unrelated letter task is one such
task. However, this task is somewhat removed
from what is involved in normal reading. To
determine whether fast readers are simply
guessing better in a sentence reading situation,
we can measure how much information
readers extract from briefly presented sentences using a probe forced-choice test
(following Reicher, 1969). In our adaptation
of this test, the subject is given a choice
between two words differing by a single
letter, where one word occurs in the sentence
presented but both choices fit the sentence
context. For example, a subject may be
presented with the sentence
Sally wore a plain scarf
and then tested with the choice
plain
Sally wore a plaid scarf.
If fast and slower readers pick up equal
visual information, their performance should
be equal. If, however, the faster reader is
able to pick up more information, he should
perform more accurately. This task is called
the forced-choice task.
To address the possibilities we have raised,
fast and average readers were first tested in a
free report task following Gilbert (1959) to
show that, indeed, we were tapping the
processes responsible for Gilbert's effects.
Then both groups were given the four tasks
described above.
In selecting subjects, we assessed comprehension, as well as speed. No subject was
included in either group unless he scored at
least 70 ~ on a comprehension test, insuring
that he was in fact reading as defined above.
The reading material and comprehension
tests were prepared with considerable care
in an attempt to obtain an accurate estimate
of the subject's reading performance. Often
the subject matter of reading tests used in
assessing reading speed may be more familiar
to some subjects than to others. The result
is inflated speed estimates for those subjects.
Comprehension tests constructed of multiplechoice questions are especially sensitive to
differences in the prior knowledge of the
subjects. Alternative answers can be eliminated and more accurate guesses made without
recourse to any knowledge gained from the
test passage. To avoid these problems, we
tested reading on a passage on an unfamiliar
topic, and required written short answers to
our test questions, to reduce the possibility
of guessing the correct answer.
METHOD
All subjects who were contacted to participate in the experiment were tested for reading
speed and comprehension (Reading Test),
and for ability to report the contents of a
briefly presented five-word sentence (Free
Report Task), in an initial session lasting up to
40 min depending on the subject's reading
speed. Subjects whose performance placed
them in either the average or fast groups
(see Subjects) returned for a second session in
which they performed, in order, the first half
of the Forced-Choice Task, the Letter Separation Task, and Threshold Task, and the second
half of the Forced-Choice Task. A break
of approximately 3 min separated the tasks
in the second session, which lasted approximately 50 min. A third session included the
Unrelated Letter Task along with further
experiments not reported here.
568 DETERMINANTS OF READING SPEED
Reading Test
The reading test consisted of a short article
of 4286 words, "The Trojan Hearse," by
Isaac Asimov (1975). The passage dealt with
asteroids. This topic area was chosen to be
unfamiliar to as many subjects as possible.
Subjects were told that the purpose of the
reading test was to obtain an estimate of their
actual reading speed. Subjects were instructed
to read the passage as fast as possible, consistent with good comprehension, and were
warned that afterwards they would be given a
comprehension test.
The comprehension test consisted of 10
short-answer questions and was completed
by each subject immediately after reading the
passage. Subjects were instructed to write a
brief answer to each question. No time limit
was placed on the comprehension test.
Answers were scored from a key written by
the experimenter. To determine whether the
questions could be answered without reading
the material, 10 graduate students who had not
seen the article were given the comprehension
test and were instructed to answer as many
questions as possible, making guesses when
necessary. The average number of questions
correctly answered was only .9 out of 10.
Subjects
Our design called for six readers in the
average range (200-300 words per minute)
and six readers who could read considerably
faster with good comprehension. Subjects
from the normal reading group were recruited
by posting a sign-up sheet. The first six
subjects obtained from this source who
satisfied all of the following restrictions were
used: (a) no courses in astronomy and no
admitted background knowledge about asteroids beyond the knowledge that asteroids
are small bodies orbiting between Mars and
Jupiter; (b) 70 ~ correct performance on the
comprehension test; and (c) a reading speed
between 200 and 300 words per minute.
Twelve subjects were tested before six satisfying all these constrains were obtained.
Subjects for the fast reader group were
solicited via sign-up sheets, advertisements in
campus publications, and recruiting within
the psychology department. Twenty-eight
subjects were tested. The six of these with the
fastest speed who passed restrictions (a)
and (b), above, were used in the experiment.
The speeds of these readers ranged from 451
to 855 words per minute. Two of these fastest
six were psychology graduate students; the
rest were undergraduates.
All subjects who typically wore corrective
lenses were required to wear them in the
experiments. Each subject was given either
course credit or $1.88 per hour, whichever he
preferred.
Apparatus and Materials
Stimuli were presented in a modified twofield Polymetric Tachistoscope with Sylvania
F4T5/D fluorescent lamps illuminating each
channel. Modifications included a more
durable timing circuit and an extension of the
viewing distance to 81 cm. The reverse field
of the tachistoscope was illuminated whenever
the stimulus field was not, with pre- and postexposure masking provided by an array of
overlapping Xs and Os. The mask extended
one space above and below each stimulus.
In the free report, forced-choice, and unrelated
letter tasks, the mask extended one space
beyond the left and right boundaries of the
stimuli. For the peripheral span and single
letter threshold tasks, the mask extended
to the edges of the field, several spaces
beyond the widest span used. The luminance
of a blank white card was approximately
192 candelas per square meter in the stimulus
field, and 185 candelas per square meter in
the masking field. All stimuli were typed
using a 10 pitch IBM selectric typewriter with
carbon ribbon and a Courier 72 element on
white 5 × 8 in. cards.
General Procedure
In all of the experimental tasks, the subject
sat looking into the tachistoscope and
JACKSON AND MCCLELLAND 569
fixated the center of the masking pattern.
Instructions stressed that the tasks were
difficult and would require full attention on
each trial. When he felt he was ready for
each trial, the subject pressed a foot switch and
300 msec later the stimulus was briefly
exposed. In all but the threshold task, stimuli
were presented for 200 msec. The 200-msec
duration is in the lower range of normal
durations of fixational pauses in reading,
which averages about 250 msec (Taylor,
1965; Abrams & Zuber, 1972).
Free Report Task
The free report stimuli consisted of fiveword sentences of the forms Noun Verb
Article Adjective Noun and Noun Verb
Preposition Article Noun. The first noun
was always a first name. For example, one
sentence was Dan fixed the flat tire. All the
sentences were complete and made sense. The
sentences were 19 to 21 letters in length
(mean 20.25), and subtended approximately
4.3 ° of visual angle. All stimuli were typed in
lowercase beginning with a capital letter.
The sentences were centered around the
center of the masking field. Subjects were
shown five practice sentences followed by
20 test sentences presented in random
order.
For each trial, subjects were instructed to
fixate on the center of the masking pattern
and try to see the whole sentence. After each
exposure subjects wrote down, on a form
provided, as much of the sentence as they
could. Subjects were instructed to write down
any letters they saw whenever they recognized
letters without identifying the whole word.
Letter Separation Test
The stimuli consisted of 72 pairs of uppercase letters formed from all combinations of
two different letters from the set A, B, C, E,
F, G, H, M, N. The letters were chosen
to be confusable, making the discrimination
more difficult. Spatial separations of 11, 17,
25, and 31 letter spaces (2.29, 3.37, 4.76, and
5.87 °, respectively) were used with the midpoint coinciding with the fixation point.
There were 18 pairs at each separation, with
each letter occurring twice on each side of
center. In addition, 12 practice items, three
at each separation, were constructed by randomly assigning 12 of the test pairs to a
different separation.
The set of possible letters was displayed
at the top of the field before and after each
trial to ensure that all subjects were aware
of the sample set. After each trial, subjects
wrote down, on a form provided, which
letter was presented on the right and which
letter was on the left of fixation. Subjects
were instructed to guess if they were not sure,
selecting only letters from the sample set.
The 12 practice trials were followed by the 72
test pairs presented in random order.
Single Letter Threshold Test
The stimuli were single capital letters
presented at the center of the stimulus field.
There were 36 stimuli, four each of the
letters A, B, C, E, F, G, H, M, and N. :The
list of letters was displayed at the top of the
pre- and post-exposure field as ,in ~the letter
separation task. Each subject was instructed
to fixate the center of the masking pattern,
and to respond verbally by saying the letter
he saw, or that he did not see a letter. The
threshold was approached using a modified
binary search method, starting at 20 msec.
The threshold was taken as the average of the
last 20 trials.
Unrelated Letter Test
Each of the unrelated letter strings consisted
of eight letters randomly chosen from the
set of consonants. Each string was typed in
capitals, centered in the presentation field,
and subtended an angle of 1.38 ° . The list
contained five practice stimuli and 20 test
stimuli. After each exposure, the subject
wrote down eight letters in any order, guessing
if necessary.
570 DETERMINANTS OF READING SPEED
Forced-Choice Test
As in the free report task, sentences were
of the form Noun Verb Article Adjective
Noun and Noun Verb Preposition Article
Noun. Sentences were made in pairs, and the
first noun was always a first name. The
sentences in the same pair differed by one
word; both words made sense in the sentence
and differed by only one letter. For example,
one pair was
K . fired evln hired a new worker.
The sentences were all 21 letters in length and
subtended 4.3 ° . Each sentence was typed in
normal lowercase type with the first letter of
the first word capitalized. There were 18
pairs in each of four critical word positions
(first, second, fourth, and fifth word) divided
into three groups of six with the critical letter
in initial, medial, and final positions within
the word. The set of sentence pairs was
separated into two lists of 72 items, with one
item from each pair in each list. Half of the
subjects in each group saw one member of
each pair (List A), and half of the subjects
saw the other member (List B). The two lists
were balanced for the number of correct
choices which were the upper and lower
members of the choice pair at each word
position. Six practice items, at least one at
each critical word position, were also constructed.
Each sentence was shown for 200 msec.
After each exposure, the subject looked over
the top of the tachistoscope to view the
choice alternatives typed at the top of the
stimulus card. The entire sentence was given
with the two alternatives at the critical
position as in the example given above.
The subject indicated his choice by writing
down the alternative he thought was in the
sentence, guessing when not sure. Subjects
had the practice sentences followed by 36
of the test sentences at the beginning of the
second session, and the remaining 36 sentences at the end of the session.
RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes each subject's performance on the reading test and the several
experimental tasks. Subjects are arranged in
order of increasing effective reading speed
(speed times comprehension).
Subjects' free reports were scored for the
percentage of letters, words, and whole
sentences reported correctly. One-tailed t
tests (corrected for nonhomogeneity of variance) showed that the fast readers reported
significantly more letters, words, and whole
sentences than did the slow readers, t(6)=
3.68, p < .005, t(10) = 2.99, p < .005, and
t(10) = 3.02, p < .005, respectively. The overall mean of 69.7 ~o words correctly reported is
comparable to the 72 ~ mean found by Gilbert
(1959). The percentage of letters correctly
reported increased with effective reading
speed, r---.74, p < .01. Similar correlations
were obtained for the other measures. The
scattergram in Fig. 1 suggests a curvilinear
relationship between reading speed and free
report accuracy.
0
0
O
O
0
I
45.
Ioo ' zoo ' 5o0 ' 4613 ' 5oo 6(30 ' ?o0 "
EFFECTIVE READING SPEED
FIG. 1. Percentage of letters correctly reported in
Free Report Task plotted against Effective Reading
Speed in words per minute.
The results for the two sensory tasks
show no difference between fast readers and
normal readers. In the single letter threshold
task, thresholds for the fast reader group,
49.3 msec, and the slow reader group, 52.7
JACKSON AND MCCLELLAND
TABLE 1
INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT RESULTS a
571
Effective UnreCompre- reading Free Report Senten- Overall lated ForcedSubject Speed hension speed letters words ces Threshold span letters choice
JC 206 70 144 43 37 0 64.5 79 53 57
MS 242 85 206 86 83 40 54.0 94 47 82
MW 257 80 206 65 63 15 49.0 81 52 65
PS 299 70 210 41 36 0 50.5 77 50 68
EM 268 80 215 62 61 20 44.0 88 57 76
JS 286 90 260 66 66 20 54.5 88 59 79
260 79 207 61 58 16 52.7 85 53 71
MT 451 80 361 82 74 25 46.5 88 71 79
CG 525 80 420 78 70 15 50.5 73 63 75
SH 615 70 430 90 88 50 50.2 81 66 79
GS 528 90 475 93 89 45 57.0 88 66 79
FM 542 90 487 87 83 40 42.0 85 61 81
BG 855 90 769 93 87 50 49.5 92 57 83
,~ 586 83 490 87 82 39 49.3 85 64 7~
"All numbers are percentage correct except Speed and Effective Reading Speed (words per minute) and
Threshold (milliseconds).
msec, were not significantly different, t(10)=
1.00, p > .1. The small difference between
means appears to be due to one subject (JC)
in the slow group who had a higher threshold;
otherwise the distributions look identical,
and the correlation with effective reading
speed is r =-.29, p > .1. In the peripheral
span task, fast readers did not differ significantly from slow readers in the number of
correct responses made at any of the four
peripheral span separations, t < 1.0 in all
cases, or in the mean performance collapsed
over all separations, t = .48. These results
are shown in Fig. 2. The two subjects making
the fewest errors at the widest spatial span
were in the slow group.
In the unrelated letter task, the fast readers
reported the letters 11 ~ more accurately
than the slow readers, tOO) -- 4.19, p < .005.
Accuracy in the unrelated letter task had a
modest correlation with effective reading
speed, r = .48, p = .06, and the number of
letters correctly reported in the free report
task, r = .52, p < .05.
In the forced-choice task, the fast readers
were 8.1 ~o more accurate than the slow
readers, t(5.87) = 1.99, p < .05. The number
of correct forced choices correlated highly
with the number of letters correct on the free
report, r = .85, p < .001, and to a lesser extent
with effective reading speed, r = .61, p < .05.
I00-
o•80
LO
0
70
60
SLOW
READERS
~\ FAST
READERS
2.5 ° 5,4 ° 48 a 5.9 °
SPATIAL SEPARATION
FIG. 2. Percentage of letters correctly reported itr,
Letter Separation Task for each spatial separation.
Means for fast readers and slow readers are plotted_
separately.
572 DETERMINANTS OF READING SPEED
DISCUSSION
The results of the free report task replicate
the results found by Gilbert (1959); faster
readers reported more letters correctly from
five-word sentence presented for a duration
approximating the average duration of a
reading fixation. The percentage of correctly
reported letters, words, and, indeed, whole
sentences increased dramatically with increasing reading speed. This effect demonstrates
once again that faster readers are able to
pick up more information from each fixation.
The present experiment found no evidence
that either of the two sensory factors considered are the determinants of superior
reading speed or superior performance in
the free report task. Fast readers' thresholds
for identifying single letters did not differ
from slow readers' thresholds. Thus, the
results suggest that the fast reader's abilityto deal with more information from each
fixation is not due to reduced susceptibility
to the masking effects of prior or subsequent
fixations.
The breadth of field from which the reader
can utilize visual information was approximately the same for the fast-reader group and
the slow-reader group. Apparently the advantage fast readers enjoy in the free report
is not due to an ability to identify letters
farther into the periphery. One possible
explanation for the lack of influence of peripheral span on the amount of information
dealt with at each fixation, is that the necessity
to devote resources to comprehending the
material reduces the amount of material
which can be attended to at each fixation
(Taylor, 1965). Consequently, any advantage
of greater peripheral sensitivity would be
useless when a sequence of words must be
organized into some sort of stable conceptual
structure.
The peripheral span results should not be
taken as evidence that fast readers and average
readers use peripheral cues equally well in the
guidance of eye movements during reading.
We doubt that the use of peripheral cues
is dependent solely on the reader's visual
sPan; it presumably depends as strongly on
the amount of processing capacity he has to
spare for dealing with sensory information
available from the periphery. If, as we will
suggest below, rapid readers are more
efficient processors of the contents of each
fixation, they may well have spare capacity
left over for the superior use of peripheral
cues to guide eye movements for subsequent
fixations.
Although peripheral span and susceptibility
to masking do not appear to differentiate
fast from average readers, we cannot rule out
the possibility that other sensory factors may
help determine how much information can be
dealt with by the reader from each fixation.
A possibility not explicitly tested in the
present experiment is sensitivity to lateral
masking of adjacent letters in the stimulus.
Bouma (1973) found evidence for lateral
visual interference in the identification of
letters in words and unrelated letter strings.
Fast readers may be less sensitive to lateral
masking effects of adjacent letters, allowing
them to identify more letters at each fixation.
If, however, lateral masking and temporal
masking are mediated by the same neural
mechanisms (Weisstein, 1968), this would
seem unlikely given our failure to find a
difference in temporal masking.
The results of the forced-choice task support
the hypothesis that fast readers are able to
form an accessible representation capturing
more of the visual information present in
each reading fixation. Fast readers identified
more words correctly when the choices
differed by a single letter and both choices
fit the sentence context. Hence, fast readers
must be picking up more information about
the critical letter than are the slow readers.
We can thus eliminate the hypothesis which
states that faster reading is solely due to an
ability to guess missing information in the
sentence based on contextual cues and
knowledge of the language.
The difference in performance for indi-
JACKSON AND MCCLELLAND 573
vidual fast readers and slow readers in the
forced-choice task is not as distinct as in the
free report task. This is to be expected,
since the number of observations involved in
the forced-choice test is not large. Even so,
it is noteworthy that the one slow reader
(MS), who was as accurate as the median
fast reader in the free report, fell in the same
position in the forced-choice task. This
subject may be a potential fast reader who is
currently reading slower than her capabilities
would permit. Alternatively, she may lack
some processing skills which are needed for
integrating information across fixations.
Although we are rejecting the hypothesis
that differences in reading speed are due
solely to differences in ability to fill in incomplete information, we do not wish to
exclude the possibility that filling-in plays an
important role in reading. Both fast readers
and slow readers identify a higher percentage
of letters in the free report task than the
percentage of correct forced choices, corrected
for guessing, would predict. Filling in letters
correctly on the basis of contextual constraints
may well be responsible for some of this
discrepancy.
The unrelated letter task permits us to ask
whether the fast reader's advantage in free
reports and forced choices is due to an
ability to process more elements regardless
of higher order structure. The answer
appears to be at least a partial yes. Fast
readers were more accurate than slower
readers in reports of unrelated letters. However, the correlation between free report and
unrelated letter performance was only moderate, in spite, of the low variance in each of
these measures, and was much lower than the
correlation between free report and forcedchoice performance. Thus, superior unrelated
letter performance alone does not appear
to account completely for free report performance, or reading speed. One interesting
possibility is that a greater-than-normal
span of apprehension is necssary for fast
reading, but, in addition, fast readers must
also possess the capability to integrate more
perceived elements into an organized conceptual representation.
CONCLUSION
A number of researchers have expressed
the view that tachistoscopic recognition tasks
are static, impoverished situations which do
not implicate the higher-order processes
required in reading (Fisher, 1975; Rayner,
1975; Taylor, 1957, 1965). This view is
justified in the sense that many processes
operating during reading, such as the control
of eye movements, the guidance of visual
search, and the integration of information
into a meaningful conceptual structure cannot
be investigated in a tachistoscopic situation.
The work of Rayner (1975), McConkie and
Rayner (1975), and Fisher (1975) in situations
more closely approximating normal reading,
represent important steps toward fuller understanding of these processes. However, the
present experiment indicates that tachistoscopic procedures are useful for investigating
some of the processes which are fundamental
to rapid reading.
Our results suggest that faster readers are
capable of encoding more information for
higher-level conceptual processes to organize
into a conceptual representation from each
fixation. The availability of more information
may well facilitate the utilization of contextual
contraints, resulting in more efficient use of
partial information. At the same time, greater
efficiency of encoding of visual information
could free limited processing resources to
deal with the conceptual content of what is
read and to guide eye movements to a useful
place to begin the cycle anew.