in this study what was the method for training the 25 person in speed reading group:
Comparison of e Comparison of eye movements befor ements before and after a speed r e and after a speed reading
course
Tammie Calef
Pacific University
Marci Pieper
Pacific University
Recommended Citation
Calef, Tammie and Pieper, Marci, "Comparison of eye movements before and after a speed reading
course" (1995). College of Optometry. 108.
https://commons.pacificu.edu/opt/108
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects at
CommonKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Optometry by an authorized administrator of
CommonKnowledge. For more information, please contact <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
Comparison of e Comparison of eye movements befor ements before and after a speed r e and after a speed reading course eading course
Abstract
The techniques of speed reading are widely used and generally accepted, but few studies have
investigated whether, and how, speed-reading actually improves reading ability in the typical reader. Using
the Ober2, an infrared monitoring device that accurately tracks eye movements, we measured the eye
movements of 59 students. The Ober2 calculates reading speed, number of fixations per 100 words,
number of words seen in each fixation, number of regressions per 1 00 words, and duration of fixation.
Comprehension was assessed with ten detailed true or false questions. Approximately half of the
students (n=25) participated in a speed reading class (9 hours of standard speed-reading instruction, with
no out-of-class practice required). The other half (n=34) did not. After completion of the course, all60
were re-measured on the Ober2. The speed reading group improved significantly in five of the six aspects
tested: reading speed, number of fixations per 100 words, span of recognition (number of words seen in
each fixation), number of regressions per 100 words, and duration of fixation. Comprehension for the
speed reading group showed an insignificant decrease. The control group improved insignificantly in all
areas. There was large individual variation in both groups, with some readers doubling their reading speed
while retaining their original comprehension. While all readers in the speed-reading group increased their
reading speed, no reader exceeded a total of 734 words per minute. The goal of this study was not to
substantiate the fantastic reading speeds reported by a few speed-readers; but to determine if there are
measurable changes in eye movements associated with speed reading training.
Degree Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Master of Science in Vision Science
Committee Chair
Bradley Coffey
Subject Categories
Optometry
This thesis is available at CommonKnowledge: https://commons.pacificu.edu/opt/108
Copyright and terms of use
If you have downloaded this document directly from the web or from CommonKnowledge, see
the “Rights” section on the previous page for the terms of use.
If you have received this document thr ed this document through an interlibr ough an interlibrary loan/document deliv y loan/document delivery service, the vice, the
following terms of use apply:
Copyright in this work is held by the author(s). You may download or print any portion of this
document for personal use only, or for any use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.).
Except for personal or fair use, you or your borrowing library may not reproduce, remix,
republish, post, transmit, or distribute this document, or any portion thereof, without the
permission of the copyright owner. [Note: If this document is licensed under a Creative
Commons license (see “Rights” on the previous page) which allows broader usage rights, your
use is governed by the terms of that license.]
Inquiries regarding further use of these materials should be addressed to: CommonKnowledge
Rights, Pacific University Library, 2043 College Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116, (503) 352-7209.
Email inquiries may be directed to:.<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comparison of Eye Movements Before and Mter a Speed Reading Course
PRESENTED BY:
Tammie Calef
in conjunction with Marci Pieper
In partial fulfillment for
the Master of Education, Visual Function in Learning
at Pacific University
June 29, 1995
Acknowledgements
Biography
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Figures pertaining to data analysis
Appendix 1 : Advertisement flyer
Appendix 2: Informed consent form
Appendix 3: Data recording form
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
8
11
13
20
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
We would like to thank Sharon Williams for her enthusiasm and speed reading expertise, Dr. Alan
Leroy for sharing his computer know-how, Dr. Scott Cooper for his willingness to help, Anita McClain for
her encouragement, and Dr. Bradley Coffey for everything else, especially his expertise in statistics.
1
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Tammie Calef holds a BA in Studio Art and Literature from Claremont Men's College. She decided
that optometry would be a great job after having several other great jobs, ranging from Apprentice
Stairbuilder in Rhode Island to Chef on a 120 foot private motor yacht. She counts among her blessings
having had the opportunity to live with her Grandmother for the past four years. She plans to settle
somewhere near an ocean after graduating with an 00 and an M. Ed, vision function in learning.
Marci Pieper was born as Marci Brenner in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. She moved with her
family to Colorado at the age of three. There she grew up in the small town of Burlington before moving to
Akron, Colorado where she graduated from high school in 1989 along with 34 other hopeful youngsters.
She did her undergraduate work at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley before entering Pacific
University, College of Optometry. To ensure a readily available practice patient while in optometry school,
she married Joseph Pieper and became Mrs. Marci Pieper in May 1993. In her spare time (little though it
may be), she enjoys data entry and number crunching for her esteemed mentor and thesis advisor, Dr.
Coffey. She has always enjoyed living on the beautiful and peaceful plains of Colorado, and will be
moving back there with her husband after graduation to pursue an optometric career.
2
ABSTRACT
The techniques of speed reading are widely used and generally accepted, but few studies have
investigated whether, and how, speed-reading actually improves reading ability in the typical reader.
Using the Ober2, an infrared monitoring device that accurately tracks eye movements, we measured the
eye movements of 59 students. The Ober2 calculates reading speed, number of fixations per 100 words,
number of words seen in each fixation, number of regressions per 1 00 words, and duration of fixation.
Comprehension was assessed with ten detailed true or false questions. Approximately half of the
students (n=25) participated in a speed reading class (9 hours of standard speed-reading instruction, with
no out-of-class practice required). The other half (n=34) did not. After completion of the course, all60
were re-measured on the Ober2. The speed reading group improved significantly in five of the six
aspects tested: reading speed, number of fixations per 100 words, span of recognition (number of words
seen in each fixation), number of regressions per 100 words, and duration of fixation. Comprehension for
the speed reading group showed an insignificant decrease. The control group improved insignificantly in
all areas. There was large individual variation in both groups, with some readers doubling their reading
speed while retaining their original comprehension. While all readers in the speed-reading group
increased their reading speed, no reader exceeded a total of 734 words per minute. The goal of this
study was not to substantiate the fantastic reading speeds reported by a few speed-readers; but to
determine if there are measurable changes in eye movements associated with speed reading training.
3
INTRODUCTION
The literature is full of studies concentrating on certain aspects of reading speed, 'and there are
some studies investigating those super-fast readers seen on TV claiming reading speeds in excess of
2000, or 200,000, words per minute (wpm). There are few studies that address the simple question "how
do eye movements change as a result of speed reading training?" This study attempts to answer that
question, and looks into some \.mderlying aspects of eye movements in reading in an attempt to
understand what characteristics are shared by better readers. The normal range of reading speed is 200-
300 words per minute.1,2
Techniques for reading faster are documented as far back as the early 1900's, but became
popularized in the 1960's with publicity about Evelyn Wood's Reading Dynamics lnstitute2. However, the
claims of reading at extravagant rates (such as 123,000 wpm) have not been substantiated by research.
The materials used, and the design of "after" tests in some speed reading classes are biased so an
increased reading speed is inevitable. Still, speed reading courses do seem to improve reading speed in
the average reader, even if speeds exceeding 1 000 wpm are rare2.
Carver-3·4 investigated several very fast readers (including one claiming to read 81,000 wpm) with
the intention of proving or disproving claims of extremely high reading speeds and found nothing to
support anyone's being able to read over 600 wpm while retaining at least 75% comprehension.
However, the design of the study was not conducive to good results from the fast readers. The readers
were not allowed to set their own reading rate, but instead were shown material for a given amount of time,
which was then translated to a certain wpm. The subjects were not told in advance how long this would
be, so could not adjust their reading strategy accordingly. Rubin and Turano5 showed that if the reader is
allowed to set the reading speed, higher speeds can be attained while retaining adequate
comprehension. Many speed readers use their hands to guide their eyes across the print, but this cannot
be done efficiently when the reader is not allowed to hold the material. Most speed readers do not claim
to read all material equally fast, but use the techniques to read at the fastest rate reasonable considering
the difficulty level of the material and the level of comprehension desired. Carver's "Rauding theory''6 that
comprehension decreases linearly as speed increases seems to be true, but only after a certain upper
4
wpm limit, which varies between individuals rather than being capped at the 400 to 600 wpm limit stated by
Carver. Breznitz7 , and Breznitz and Shares showed that first graders comprehended 30% better while
reading aloud at a fast pace than when reading at their self-pace. Masson1 found that during skimming of
material, "subjects did devote a greater degree of conceptual processing to gist-relevant statements than
to irrelevant ones", and that while overall understanding was gained in skimming, retention of precise
details and of irrelevant statements was reduced.
Breznitz and Shares studied school children reading aloud at self-paced and at accelerated rates,
and found there to be "gains (in comprehension that) appear to be attributed, at least in part, to lower
distractibility". They contend that the improvement is due to better utilization of short term memory. When
reading faster, there is "an increase in the number of elements being held in short term memory", resulting
in 30% better comprehension (and in some individual cases, 100% improvement). As well, there were
fewer decoding errors when the children read faster, raising the possibility that increased comprehension
was also due "simply to accuracy gains". However, this hypothesis was not supported by the data of the
study. Jackson and McCielland9 found that better readers had better short term auditory memory. They
also found that better readers had faster reaction times in letter matching tasks which required long-term
memory access to letter codes. They concluded that the "most important determinants ... of reading
speed ... lie in some general, modality-independent, language comprehension skills". This is supported
by Dixon, LeFevre, and Twilley10, who found that "working memory efficiency during reading was related
to comprehension", and that readers with better vocabularies were more efficient in their use of their
working memory. Riley and Lowe11 tried to determine if subvocalization slowed reading speed but
increased comprehension, but could find no evidence to support or disprove either supposition.
Beers12 states that "good readers have several different reading rates- not just one", from which
they choose "according to the purpose for reading". She reports on an accelerated reading course which
was offered to ninth graders in Florida. Beers states that "significant gains were made in all areas tested"
(using the Nelson-Denny Reading Test), and stated that the course would be continued in their
curriculum. Brozo and Johns13 reviewed 40 speed reading books to extract the common elements.
Regarding span of recognition, 68% of the books taught methods for increasing the span of recognition;
72% of these encouraged the reader to read up to three words in each fixation, while 28% of the books
5
encouraged reading more than three words in each fixation. Research cited by Brozo and Johns found
19 letter-characters to be the upper limit possible during each fixation, and suggested that span of
recognition is relatively fixed and limited. Regarding regressions (looking back to material already read),
68% of the books encouraged ducing the number of regressions. Brozo and Johns give a profile of a
poor reader, stating that "inefficient readers make more fixations, have longer fixations, a greater number
of regressions, and generally more erratic eye movement patterns".
Jackson and McCielland9 found that better readers made fewer fixations per line than did poorer
readers, but had fixation durations of about the same amount of time. They concluded that better readers
extracted more information per fixation. Underwood, Hubbard, and Wilkinson14 , found a correlation
between increased comprehension and decreased duration of fixation. They state that ''fixation duration
was highlighted as the most reliable predictor of reading ability". They do not attempt to assign causality,
mentioning that faster word recognition and integration, faster syntactic parsing, and/or other faster
cognitive processes need to occur in order for shorter duration of fixation to occur. Both of these studies
indicate that readers who make fewer fixations do not need to make the fixations longer in order to gain
the same information as a person who makes many fixations. Rounds, Manley, and Norris15 did a study to
determine the effect of four weeks (12 hours) of visual training (VT) on reading efficiency. They tested
comprehension, relative efficiency (wpm/number of fixations), number of regressions, number of fixations
per 1 00 words, duration of fixations, and span of recognition. The VT group improved significantly
compared to the control group in all categories except in duration of fixation, in which the VT group
improved only slightly more than the control group. The VT group showed four times more improvement
in their reading speed than did the control group. Some of the techniques taught in speed reading can
neutralize minor oculomotor problems, such as using the hand to help keep the eyes on track.
Sailor and Ball16 found that peripheral vision increased in students after receiving 15.75 hours of
speed reading training. Half of these speed reading students were given an additional2.25 hours of
peripheral vision training. Both groups showed an increase in both reading speed and in peripheral
vision. Interestingly, although the peripheral vision training group did not have a greater increase in
peripheral vision than the non-peripheral vision training group, they did have greater increases in reading
speed, leading one to speculate that the peripheral vision training did play a part in increasing reading
6
speed. Comprehension was the same in' before and after testing. In the speed reading class employed in
this study, subjects were taught that a one to two second per page scan can preset the mind to absorb the
upcoming information. That is, in a brief glance readers can know the basic topic of the material, and can
determine, for example, whether they are reading ocular science or a gothic romance. Quickly previewing
the material may make it faster and easier to access related information stored in the subject's brain. If this
is the case, picking up an occasional word from the line below could enhance reading efficiency.
Pollatsek, Raney, Lagasse, and Rayner17 found no evidence that "visual search is more efficient" when
information is presented on the line below the line upon which the subject is fixating. They did, however,
find that if the lower line consisted of non-word-like letter combinations, reading rate decreased. They
also found that some subjects could identify target words in the line below the line of fixation. Henderson
and Ferreira18 investigated whether the level of difficulty of the upcoming parafoveal word affects the eye
movement behavior on the currently fixated word, and they found that fixation on a given word was not
affected by the nature of the next word. It is widely accepted that readers in English tend to process more
information to the right of the fixation than to the left of fixation. Haberlandt, Schnieder, and Graesser19
found that slow readers tend to fixate at the end of each sentence, a less efficient method than that used
by faster readers who fixate at the end of each line. Stated another way, fast readers paused longer at
physically defined locations, whereas slower readers paused longer at linguistically defined locations.
Fast readers also "chunk'' information more efficiently than do slower readers19, and can continue reading
additional words even if they do not immediately understand what they have just read, utilizing working
memory to continue processing the previously read words. Both of these techniques, chunking and
reading in physically defined segments, are taught in speed reading.
An interesting study regarding reading speed is the research of Rubin and TuranoS who
determined that the limiting factor in reading speed is the time involved in preparing to make saccadic eye
movements. They presented words consecutively in a single spot on a screen, at a rate determined by
the reader. If material was presented at a pace set by the reader in a manner that relieved the need for
saccadic eye movements, a mere 70 msec/word was required to understand material, with a pause equal
to one word duration at the end of egch sentence. This compares to 170 msec/word recorded as the
fastest duration of fixation in normal reading, and to the 250 msec/word required by Rubin and Turano's
7
subjects in normal reading. This indicated that over two thirds of the time spent on each fixation is not
needed for receiving information, but rather is somehow required for programming the saccade. In
presenting text without saccades, best comprehension was gained at rates of at least 350 wpm, but rates
of more that 1600 wpm (the maximum possible) were found, with excellent recall and comprehension.
Print size became more important when saccades, which are the speed-limiting factor in normal reading,
were removed. Print between 4 to nine times larger than the subject's minimum resolvable print size
allowed for the fastest reading speeds. For reading rates of 70 msec/word, complete concentration is
required. None of the subjects felt comfortable reading 1650 wpm, even though their comprehension
was 75% or better. One could extrapolate that even minor difficulties in eye movements can cause great
reductions in reading speed. None of the various studies cited here address our question: What is the
effect of speed reading training on eye movements?
METHODS
Subjects were selected by advertising a speed reading course that would normally cost $400 for
only $25 to be offered on the Pacific University campus (appendix 1 ). Since the subjects had to pay $25
to participate in the study, it was hoped that this would dissuade non-motivated subjects. All subjects
were required to read and sign an informed consent document prior to participating (appendix 2).
The speed reading group consisted of 25 subjects (14 females and 11 males) ranging in age from
20 to 43 years, with a mean age of 28. The subjects were undergraduate students, optometry students,
and non-students. Thirty individuals were initially recruited to be subjects; however, four of the subjects
failed the entrance criteria and one speed reading student, at the end of the study, read straight down the
page instead of accross, and the eye movement recording system couldn't analyze the data. The control
group consisted of 34 subjects (21 females and 13 males) ranging in age from 21 to 43 years, with a mean
age of 26. Control subjects were optometry students and non-students.
The entrance criteria included having near monocular habitual visual acuity of at least 20/40 (mean
= 20/23), heterophoria at near based on near cover test, and smooth and accurate ocular motility with no
gaze restrictions based on bead skills and results from an initial test on the Ober2, Model B-1203 .
a LearnMaster. 7810 S. W. 66th Ave. Portland, Ore. 97223 (503) 245-6418
8
At the start of the study, all subjects were scheduled for a 20 minute session in which they were
given a series of tests to determine if they met the entrance criteria. They were then tested on the Ober2,
a state of the art infrared eye movement recording system used for clinical assessment of reading eye
movements. Subjects who wore spectacles had their prescription duplicated using trial lenses in the lens
wells of the Ober2 test goggles. The subject wore the infrared goggles while reading hard copy text. Eye
movement information detected by the goggle sensors is relayed to a 486 PC computer for analysis and
display. The manufacturer ofthe Ober2 states that the Ober2 is sensitive to less than 5 minutes of arc
horizontally, but it was tested by an end user at 9 minutes of arc: The "normal sized" text character spans
approximatly 15 minutes of arc horizontally.20
In the study, the subjects were instructed to read a passage as fast as they could, but for good
comprehension. Each passage contained approximately 120 words which required approximately 20-40
seconds to complete depending on the subject. The passage was printed in 14 point Times Bold, with
high contrast black print on white paper. The computer analyzed fixations/1 00 words, span of recognition,
regressions/1 00 words, duration of fixation, and words/minute. The subjects were then given 1 0
true/false questions to answer concerning the passage they had just read and a comprehension score
was determined for each subject. At the initial test session, each subject was tested twice on the Ober2.
Test 1a was run first, immediately followed by test 1 b. This dual testing was done for two reasons. First,
the results from test 1 a were used as part of the entrance criteria to ensure each individual had fairly
accurate eye movements that didn't hinder reading ability. The second reason for test 1 a was to familiarize
the subjects with the Ober2, and thus counter any learning or familiarity effects between the results at the
beginning and end of the study. The data from test 1a were not used in any pre-to-post analysis; only the
results from test 1 b were used as the pre-speed-reading course data. All results were recorded on a data
form (appendix 4).
The study subjects were required to attend a minimum of three speed reading classes, each
lasting three hours. These courses were taught by a professional instructor who had taught speed
reading for over 20 years to students of all ages and education levels. During these classes, subjects
were given intense instruction on methods to improve their reading speed while maintaining or improving
their comprehension. The instructor taught the subjects various techniques to incorporate into their
9
reading habits, and ran many drills to teach the subjects how to use these techniques properly. They
were also advised, but not required, to use the techniques whenever they were reading, whether it was
for work, school, or pleasure. There were two additional classes offered that stressed study skills, and
were used to review the speed reading techniques that had been taught during the first three classes.
Attendance was optional for these last two classes. The control subjects continued their regular daily life
and were instructed not to alter their reading style during the duration of the study.
Six weeks after data were gathered from tests 1 a and 1 b, the speed reading course was
completed, and test 2 was run. Factors such as illumination, setup, and instructions given were identical
to the initial testing setup. The same criteria were analyzed by the computer for test 2 (post-speed
reading course data) as were analyzed for test 1 b (the pre-speed reading course data). The results from
test 1 b were then compared to the results from test 2 to determine any effects associated with the speed
reading training.
All of the passages and questions were of the same difficulty level. They were college level
passages included in the Ober2 software. A copy of one passage that was used in the study, and the 10
T/F questions used to determine each subject's comprehension score, can be found in appendix 4.
RESULTS
All comparative data were subjected to analysis using two-way ANOVA procedures, with pre/post
training (repeated measures) and group assignment being the main factors. Table 1 summarizes these
results. After comparing the data gathered from tests 1 b and 2, it was found that those subjects who took
the speed reading course significantly decreased their number of fixations, number of regressions, and
fixation duration. While the control group also showed decreases, they were not significant. It was also
found that the speed reading group showed a significant increase in span of recognition and reading
speed, as compared to insignificant increases in these areas by the control group. The control group's
comprehension scores went up slightly while the class group's comprehension scores went down
slightly; this variable had a significant interaction.
10
!Pre-Data r:_ostData
:::>1gn111cance
Variable Units Group Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Group Repeated Interaction
Measure
Fixations/ Number of Speed 94.6 19.5 71.0 21.7 F=2.541 F=39.98 F--22.233
100 words Fixations Control 93.0 21.5 88.4 18.5 P=0.1165 P=0.0001 P=0.0001
Span of Number of Speed 1.10 02 1.54 0.49 F=5.287 F=38.927 F--30.265
Reoognition Characters Control 1.13 02 1.18 025 P=0.0252 P=0.0001 P=0.0001
Regressions/ Number of Speed 16.88 10.1 6.16 52 F=0.860 F=34.056 F=21.307
100 words Regressions Control 14.18 8.8 12.38 7.3 P=0.2577 P=0.0001 P=0.0001
Duration of Time in Speed 0.241 0.03 0228 0.02 F=1 .096 F=5.273 F=3.057
Fixation Seconds Control 0244 0.03 0.241 0.04 P=0.2995 P=0.0254 P=0.0858
Words per Number of . Speed 277.6 63.8 404.5 140.9 F=6.058 F=35.193 F=27.238
Minute Words/min Control 280.6 69.1 295.9 80.3 P=0.0169 P=0.0001 P=0.0001
Comprehension Percentage Speed 80.8 15.8 73.6 16.0 F=0.158 F=0.870 F=4.125
Control 77.6 13.3 79.4 15.9 P=0.6924 P=0.355 P=0.0469
. . . . - Table 1. Oescnpt1ve data by group and cond1t1on wtth stattsttcal stgntftcance of mam effects and tnteractton .
Referring to Figure 1 , it can be seen that the speed readers decreased their number of
fixations/100 words by 23.6 fixations as compared to a 4.6 fixation decrease by the control group. The
main effect for group assignment is not significant. The main effect for the repeated measure,
fixations/1 00 words, improved significantly (F=39.98, p<0.0001) and, most importantly there was a
significant interaction (F=22.233, p<0.0001) indicating greater improvement for the speed reading
group.
Span of recognition is inversely related to the number of fixations one makes when reading. The
larger the span of recognition (the more characters one can see during a fixation) the less fixations one
has to make. Figure 2 shows an increase in span of recognition of 0.44 words for the speed readers and
0.05 words for the control group. For span of recognition, both main effects were significant (group
F=5.287, p<0.0252; repeated measure F=38.927, p<0.0001) as was the interaction (F=30.265,
p<0.0001} indicating significantly greater improvement by the speed readers.
Number of regressions decreased for both groups as can be seen in Figure 3. The speed
reading group decreased by an average of 10.72 regressions/1 00 words while the control group
11
decreased by only 1.8 regressions/1 00 words. The main effect for group was not significant, but was
significant for the repeated measure (F=34.067, p<0.0001 ). The interaction was also significant
(F=21.307, p<0.0001) suggesting that the speed reading group improved more.
Figure 4 shows the change in the duration of fixation. The speed reading group decreased
fixation duration by 0.013 seconds as compared to a 0.003 seconds decrease by the control group. For
fixation duration, the main effect for group was not significant; however, it was significant for the repeated
measure (F=5.273, p<0.0254). The interaction was not significant. It was not expected that this variable
would change significantly, as it was thought that increased spans of recognition would require the same
or longer fixation duration as was necessary with a shorter span of recognition.
The reading speed increased in both groups as can be seen in Figure 5. The speed reading
group's reading speed went up significantly by 126.9 wpm, whereas the control group's reading speed
went up only slightly by 15.30 wpm. Both main effects for reading speed were significant (group
F=6.058, p<0.0169; repeated measure F=35.193, p<0.0001) as was the interaction (F=27.238,
p<0.0001 ). This undoubtedly shows that the speed reading group had significantly greater
improvement.
Figure 6 shows the change in comprehension scores between the two groups at the beginning
and end of the study. The control group's comprehension score increased slightly by 1.8%. The speed
reading group showed a 7.2% decrease in their comprehension score. Neither of the main effects,
group or repeated measure, were significant for the comprehension variable; however, there was a
significant interaction (F=4.125, p<0.0469) reflecting the different directional effects of the two groups.
Overall, results obtained from paired t-tests for the control group show no significant changes in
the tested factors of fixations/1 00 words, span of recognition, regressions/1 00 words, length of
duration, reading speed, or comprehension score. However, results for the speed reading group from
paired t-tests show significant values for decrease in fixations (p = .0001 ), increase in span of recognition
(p = .0001), decrease in regressions (p = .0001), decrease in fixation duration (p = .0039), and increase
in reading speed (p = .0001 ). The slight decrease in the class comprehension score was not significant
(p = .0981).
12
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that speed-reading techniques can be beneficial to the typical
reader. Significant improvements for the speed-reading group were found in five of the six variables
measured: number of fixations per one hundred words decreased by 25%, span of recognition increased
by 40%, number of regressions decreased by 64%, duration of fixation decreased 5%, and reading
speed increased by 46%. There was a decrease in comprehension of 7.2% which was not significant. For
the control group, insignificant improvements were found in all six variables measured: number of fixations
per one hundred words decreased by 5%, span of recognition increased by 4%, number of regressions
decreased by 13°f, duration of fixation decreased 1%, reading speed increased by 5%, and
comprehension increased by 1.8%. There was much individual variation.
Number of fixations per one hundred words decreased 25% for the speed reading group, vs. 5%
for the control group. Since two thirds of each fixation is used not for information processing but for
programming the next saccade, reducing the number of fixations, and reducing the number of
regressions, will result in faster reading speeds. In the speed reading group, 24 of 25 subjects showed a
decrease in the number of fixations per one hundred words (for an average of 25% fewer fixations), as
compared to 21 of 34 of the control group subjects (for an average of 5% fewer fixations), with the
greatest improvement in the speed reading group being 53 fewer fixations per 1 00 words, from 125
fixations per 1 00 words to 72 fixations per 1 00 words. The fewest fixations for one hundred words being
38. In the control group, the greatest improvement was a decrease of 48 fixations per 1 00 words, from
167 fixations per 1 00 words to 119 fixations per 1 00 words. The fewest fixatibns among the control
subjects for one hundred words was 57.
Span of recognition increased by 40% for the speed reading group, vs. a 4% increase for the
control group. The more characters (letters) a reader can recognize in each fixatibn, the fewer the fixations
needed to cover the materiaL The study by Pollatsek et al17 showed that there is a direct relationship
between peripheral vision and reading speed, but their research did not show that peripheral vision
training itself increased reading speed. Of the speed reading group, 24 of 25 subjects showed an
increased span of recognition (40% larger span of recognition), as compared to 21 of 34 of the control
group subjects (4% larger span of recognition). The greatest improvement in the speed reading group
13
was an increase of 1 .26 more words read with each fixation, with the starting span of recognition being
1.37 words read per fixation and the ending span of recognition being 2.63 words re8.d with each fixation.
The most characters per fixation read by the speed reading group was 2.63 words per fixation. The
greatest improvement in the control group was an increase of 0.48 more words read with each fixation,
with the starting span of recognition being 0.85 words read per fixation and the ending span of
recognition being 1.33 words read with each fixation. The most characters per fixation read by the control
group was 1 . 75 words per fixation.
Number of regressions decreased by 64% for the speed reading group, vs. 13% for the control
group. The reduction in regressions may be related to the use of the hand as a pacer, which would
compel the eyes to continue forward to keep up with the hand. Again, due to the time involved in
programming and completing saccadic eye movements, any reduction in eye movement will lead to
increased reading speed, if all other variables are held constant. The elimination of redundant eye
movements will improve reading speed. Of the speed reading group, 23 of 25 showed a decrease in the
number of regressions (64% fewer regressions), as compared to 22 of 34 of the control group (15% fewer
regressions), with the greatest improvement in the speed reading group being a reduction of 29 fewer
regressions per 1 00 words, a decrease from 34 regressions per 1 00 words to 5 regressions per 1 00
words. The fewest regressions in the speed reading group was 0 regressions. The greatest
improvement in the control group was a reduction of 17 fewer regressions per 1 00 words, a decrease from
44 regressions per 1 00 words to 27 regressions per 1 00 words. The fewest regressions in the control
group was 1. With the theory that fewer regressions might increase comprehension, due to fewer breaks
in continuity of information intake, the data were analysed correlating comprehension with 1 0 or greater
reductions in regressions per 1 00 words, with 15 or greater reductions in regressions per 1 00 words, and
with 20 or greater reductions in regressions per 1 00 words. There was no consistency in the data and the
sub•groups were too small for any conclusions to be drawn.
Duration of fixation decreased 5% for the speed reading group, vs. l% for the control group. We
had not anticipated this, but rather, were speculating that we would instead see either a slight increase or
no change, considering that the reader would be processing more information with each fixation if
increased span of recognition was found, as it was. The decrease in fixation duration may be, in part, due
14
to more efficient saccades, as the Ober2 does not measure duration of saccadic motion and duration of
fixation separately. Of the speed reading group, 16 of 25 showed a decrease in duration of fixation, as
compared to 15 of 34 of the control group, with the greatest improvement in the speed reading group
being a reduction of 0.07 seconds, from a starting duration time of 0.28 sec and a finishing duration of
0.21 sec. The shortest duration of fixation for the speed reading group was 0.18 sec. For the control
group, the greatest improvement was a reduction of 0.04 seconds, from a starting duration time of 0.26
sec to a finishing duration of 0.22 sec. The shortest duration of fixation for the speed reading group was
0.19 sec. It is interesting to remember Rubin and Turano's5 research which indicates that only 0.07 sec is
required to comprehend material, and the rest of the fixation time is used to program the saccade. The
fastest saccade they found in their study was 0.17 sec, with 0.25 sec being the average.
Reading speed increase is related to the improvement in the eye movement components of
reading. Fewer fixations and fewer regressions will lead to a faster reading speed. Rubin and Turano5
found that the visual system uses over two thirds of the duration of fixation time to program for a saccade,
rather than to gain information. A shorter duration of fixation will also lead to less time being required to
complete a passage. A larger span of recognition allows the reader to fixate fewer times but still read the
~ntire passage. Of the speed reading group, 24 of 25 showed an increased reading speed (46% faster),
as compared to 21 of 34 of the control group ( 5% faster). For the speed reading group, the greatest
increase in reading speed was 436 words per minute (wpm), from a starting speed of 298 wpm to a final
speed of 734 wpm. The fastest speed for a speed reading group subject was 734 wpm. For the control
group, the greatest improvement was an increase of 147 wpm, from 379 wpm to 526 wpm, with the fastest
reading speed in the control group being 526 wpm.
Comprehension decreased for the speed reading group by 7.2%, and increased for the control
group by 1.8%. The changes in comprehension were slight, but were statistically significant when the
two groups were compared to each other in a two way ANOV A. Speed reading subjects reported that
when reading faster they felt that they concentrated better and daydreamed less. In the testing situation
they may have sacrificed comprehension in order to show an increase in reading speed. For the speed
reading group 24 of 25 showed an increase in reading speed. Of those 24 whose reading speed
increased, 8 individuals showed improved comprehension, 3 maintained the same comprehension score,
15
and 13 had decreased comprehension scores. In the control group, 21 of 34 showed an increase in
reading speed. Of these 21, 4 individuals showed improved comprehension, 7 maintained the same
comprehension scores, and 10 showed decreased comprehension. Of the speed reading group over all,
16 of 25 showed a decrease in comprehension, as compared to 12 of 34 of the total control group.
Of the 9 speed readers who showed equal or improved comprehension, reading speed improved
an average of 127 wpm, number of fixations decreased an average of 23.8 fixations per 100 words, span
of recognition increased an average of 0.4 words read per fixation, number of regressions decreased an
average of 13 regressions per 100 words, and duration of fixation decreased by an average of 0.014 sec
(see Table 2). The comprehension rate of this group (speed readers whose comprehension either stayed
the same or improved) increased by an average of 1 0%, or one more correct answer than before. There is
an improvement of 15%, or 1.5 more correct answers for the speed reading group if only those with
increased comprehension are considered without including those who maintained the same
comprehension. Of the 16 speed readers who showed reduced comprehension, average changes are
as follows: reading speed improved 126.6 wpm, number of fixations decreased by 23.12 fixations per 100
words, span of recognition increased by 0.47 words read in each fixation, number of regressions
decreased by 9.3 regressions per 100 words, and duration of fixation decreased by 0.012 sec. The
comprehension rate of this group (speed readers whose comprehension decreased), decreased by an
average of 17%, or 1.7 more incorrect answers than before.
For the control group, the 22 who had equal or increased comprehension showed these
averages: their reading speed improved by 6.9 wpm, number of fixations increased by 1.45 fixations per
100 words (all other sub-groups showed a decrease), span of recognition decreased by 0.0036 words
per fixation (all other sub-groups showed an increase), number of regressions decreased by 0.09
regressions per 100 words, and duration of fixation decreased by 0.0059 sec. (see Table 2). The
comprehension rate of this group (control group whose comprehension either stayed the same or
increased), increased by an average of 11.4%, or 1.14 more correct answers than before. There is an
improvement of 18.5%, or 1.85 more correct answers for the control group if only those with increased
comprehension are considered without including those who maintained the same comprehension. The
12 subjects in the control group who had a decrease in comprehension showed these averages: their
16
reading speed improved by 30.9 wpm, number of fixations decreased 15.6 fixations per 1 00 words, span
of recognition increased by 0.159 words read in each fixation, number of regressions decreased by 4.9
regressions per 100 words, and duration of fixation increased by 0.019 sec (other sub-groups showed a
decrease). The comprehension rate of this group (control group whose comprehension decreased),
decreased by an average of 15.8%, or 1.58 more incorrect answer than before.
compre- reading # of span of # of duration of
hension speed fixations recognition reg res- fixation
per 100 sions per
words 100
words
Speed reading group 1 more 127 wpm 23.8 0.4 word 13 0.014 sec
whose comprehension correct* faster fewer larger fewer shorter
remained equal or
impJoved. (9 of 25)
Speed reading group 1.7 126.6 wpm 23.12 0.473 word 9.3 fewer 0.0119
whose comprehension fewer faster fewer larger sec shorter
decreased. correct
(16of25)
Control group whose 1.14 6.9 wpm 1.45 0.0036 0.09 0.0059
comprehension more faster more word smaller fewer sec shorter
remained equal or correct*
improved. (22 of 34)
Control group whose 1.58 30.9 wpm 15.58 0.159 word 4.9 fewer 0.019 sec
comprehension fewer faster fewer larger longer
decreased. (12 of 34) correct
1 able 2. ~mma ry ot avera g e chan ge s 1n both gp rou s when se p a rated b' y com p rehenSion scores. 'There is an improvement of 1.5 more correct answers for the speed reading group, and 1.85 more for the control group if only those wdh
increased comprehension are considered, instead of both those who maintained the same comprehension and those who improved.
For the speed reading group, both those with increased comprehension and those with
decreased comprehension improved in all five areas. The improvements for both sub-groups of the
speed reading group are similar. Notably, those speed readers with increased comprehension had a
greater reduction in the number of regressions per 100 words than did the speed reading sub-group with
decreased comprehension. For the control group, those with equal or increased comprehension had an
increase in the number of fixations per 1 00 words and had a reduced span of recognition as compared to
their entrance test. Those control sub-group subjects with decreased comprehension had a longer
duration of fixation than they had shown in the initial test, but their reading speed increased more than that
of the control sub-group with equal or increased comprehension. For the speed reading group, both
those with increased comprehension and those with decreased comprehension increased their reading
speed by about 127 wpm. About two thirds of the speed reading group had an average 17% decrease in
17
comprehension, but the individual who had the greatest increase in speed (436 wpm faster, for a final
reading speed of 734 wpm) had 90% comprehension in both the initial and the final test.
Based on the results of this study, speed reading techniques can benefit the typical reader by
increasing reading speed, but with somewhat decreased comprehension for some. Of course, the reader
can select to read slower when greater comprehension is required. Other techniques taught in the speed
reading course, but not previously discussed in this paper, aid in study efficiency. These include
previewing the material prior to reading by looking first, for example, at the table of contents, and then
spending one to two seconds on each page, drawing the eyes down the page with the hands, paying
attention particularly to the structure and organization of the material, bold print titles, and occasional
proper nouns and other single words in order to "set the scene". This allows the mind to begin to access
stored knowledge on the topic, which helps to increase comprehension.
There are many areas for future study related to enhancement of reading speed. The area to
emphasize in training faster reading is increasing span of recognition, as this seems to be the limiting
factor in reaching faster reading speeds (in those with accurate eye movement control), in light of the ·
research showing the large percentage of each fixation which is involved in programming saccadic eye
movements rather than in gaining information. As well, there has yet to be an unbiased study to
substantiate or disprove the claims of reading speeds in excess of 2000 wpm. Imaginative researchers
could easily adapt existing technology to this pursuit.
18
1 Masson MEJ. Cognitive processes in skimming stories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition. 1982;8:400-417
2Thompson ME. Dimensions of speed reading: a review of research literature. Paper presented at the
28th Annual Meeting of the North Central Reading Association. (Ann Arbor, Ml, October 18-19, 1985)
3carver RP. How good are some of the world's best readers? Reading Research Quarterly.
1985;20:389-419
4otto W. In search of the world's fastest readers. Journal of Reading. 1985;29:284-287
5Rubin GS, Turano K. Reading without saccadic eye movements. Vision Research. 1992;32:895-902
6carver RP. Rauding theory predictions of amount comprehended under different purposes and speed
reading conditions. Reading Research Quarterly. 1984;19: 205-218
7sreznitz Z. Increasing first graders' reading accuracy and comprehension by accelerating their reading
rates. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1987;79:236-242
8sreznitz Z, Share DL. Effects of accelerated reading rate on memory for text. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 1992;84: 193-199
9Jackson MD, McClelland JL. Processing determinants of reading speed. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General. 1979;1 08:151-181
10Dixon P, LeFevre J, Twilley LC. Word knowledge and working memory as predictors ofreading skill.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988;80:465-472
11 Riley JA, Lowe JD. A Study of enhancing vs. reducing subvocal speech during reading. Journal of
Reading. 1981 ;25:7-13
12Beers PG. Accelerated reading for high school students. Journal of Reading. 1986;29:311-315
13srozo WG, Johns JL. A content and critical analysis of 40 speed reading books. Journal of Reading.
1986;30:242-247
14Underwood G, Hubbard A, Wilkinson H. Eye fixations predict reading comprehension: The
relationships between reading skill, reading speed, and visual inspection. Language and Speech.
1990;33:69-81
19
15Rounds BB, Manley CW, Norris RH. The effect of oculomotor training on reading efficiency. Journal of
the American Optometric Association. 1991 ;62:92-99
16sailor AL, Ball SE. Peripheral vision training in reading speed and comprehension. Perceptual and
Motor Skills. 1975;41:761-762
17Pollatsek A, Raney GE, Lagasse L, Rayner K. The use of information below fixation in reading and in
visual search. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1993;47:179-200
18Hende~son JM, Ferreira F. Eye movement control during reading: fixation measures reflect foveal but
not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1993;42:201-221
19Haberlandt KF, Schnieder NJ, Graesser AC. Reading strategies of fast and slow readers. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1989;15:815-823
20Laukkanen H. Eye movements in reading. In: Anne Barber, Ed. Vision therapy: pursuits and
saccades: theories and testing. Santa Anna, California. Optometric Extension Program. In press. pg 17