translate this to persian please:
Conclusions about the natural reading process
We have seen that reading is an elegantly choreographed dance among a number of visual and mental processes. Modern research has shown that, contrary to some earlier views (Goodman, 1967), reading is not a psycholinguistic guessing game in which we guess the identities of words and other linguistic units based on minimal visual input. Rather, we pick up detailed visual information from the text, moving our eyes so that we fixate most words once and going backward to reread if problems arise. The visual information that we obtain, combined with our knowledge of the language we are reading, allows us to identify the words in the text and to comprehend it.
Reading silently is faster for skilled readers than either reading aloud or hearing someone else read the text. This difference reflects, in part, limitations on how quickly we can talk. A speaking rate of 150 to 160 wpm is comfortable; this is the rate that is recommended for speakers who are recording audiobooks or podcasts. Those who have practiced rapid speaking, such as auctioneers, can maintain rates close to that of skilled reading, between 250 and 400 wpm. Some people prefer to double the speed of audio books to get through them more quickly, but this still brings the speed up only to the middle of the average reading-rate range (i.e., around 300 wpm). Viewed in this light, most people reading this article are already going quite quickly. Yet in the modern world, with its abundance of text, people often want to go even quicker. Is there a special form of silent reading in which speed and accuracy are both high? Even better, is there a form that we can use effectively without having to spend time on training and practice? We turn now to a review of research on reading via RSVP, in which words are presented rapidly one at a time. This presentation technique is used in some speed-reading technologies that claim to be able to produce rapid reading with preserved comprehension and without the need for much, if any, practice. It is important, therefore, to find out what research shows about reading via RSVP.
Rapid Serial Visual Presentation
Presenting text with the RSVP method allows a reader to maintain fixation at a single location on a display as a sequence of words is presented in quick succession. The execution of eye movements is not required at all. The RSVP method was originally used as a tool to scientifically study reading-comprehension processes (e.g., Forster, 1970; Forster & Ryder, 1971; Holmes & Forster, 1972; Potter, 1984). As we will see, subsequent investigations have provided a rich body of information about how reading is altered by this special method, information that is important for evaluating speed-reading technologies that use it.
Reading single sentences with RSVP
In research using RSVP, a short series of words is presented, with each word in view for about 100 ms (i.e., at a speed of about 600 wpm; this duration varies across studies). Then the participant is asked to recall the words. Strikingly, when the words form a meaningful sentence, participants are quite good at this task. When the words are unrelated or scrambled, however, performance is poor (Potter, Kroll, & Harris, 1980). The fact that a reader can easily understand and remember a single RSVP sentence shows that words can be recognized and the meaning of a sentence can be understood very rapidly. Success with a single sentence might be attributed to readers’ holding words in memory until the end of the sentence and then assembling them into meaningful propositions after the rapid presentation has ended (Mitchell, 1979, 1984). That is, the words may have been presented at a faster rate than the comprehension system could follow. However, there is evidence that sentence comprehension can occur even during the course of RSVP presentation of single sentences. For example, Masson (1986) presented sentences via RSVP at 100 ms per word (equivalent to 10 words per second or 600 wpm). The sentences were constructed so that the final word appeared in uppercase letters and remained on the screen until the reader made a response to it (in one experiment, readers made a lexical decision; in another, they named the word aloud). For some sentences, the final word was highly predictable from the preceding sentence context (e.g., “He mailed the letter without a STAMP”), and in other sentences, the final word was unrelated to the meaning of the sentence (e.g., “He mailed the letter without a DRILL”). Masson found that readers were able to identify the final word more quickly when the sentence context made it predictable, both when the readers were making lexical decisions about the words and when they were naming them aloud. Importantly, the effects of predictability were substantial for both tasks, although somewhat less than those reported in earlier studies in which, instead of RSVP, people read the sentences at a normal rate and then made the lexical decision or naming response (Fischler & Bloom, 1979; Stanovich & West, 1983).
To show that the RSVP predictability effects were truly due to successful sentence comprehension, Masson included a condition in his study in which sentence contexts were scrambled (e.g., “the without letter a mailed He STAMP”). Predictability effects were much weaker for the scrambled sentences than for the normal sentences, indicating that sentence comprehension contributed to those effects. Overall, these results showed that participants could understand RSVP sentences as they were presented at the rate of 10 words per second, even when the task required them to attend only to the final uppercase word.