Talk:Subvocalization

message: I find myself subvocalizing *heavily* when I do mental arithmetic, in particular multiplication. It's annoying and slows me down. And I can't shut it up easily, tho I'm confident that it can be unlearned.
When thinking in general (trains of thought, planning,...) I find myself able to not subvocalize and the effect is enormous. My mind doesn't spend time subvocalizing; instead I can continue the train of thought or the planning.
It's like this whole paragraph "reduces" to one thought, not 10 seconds of subvocal speech. The thing is: it has always been just the thought, but with superfluous and reflexive verbiage around it.
It's a shame that there isn't more research into subvocalization outside of speedreading.
--134.130.183.101 (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [2009 III] subvocalization when doing mental arithmetic or general thought 

message: Especially first and third sentence referencing [2] Rayner, Keith and Pollatsek, Alexander (1994) The Psychology of Reading.
Recently... I have read without subvocalization while being actually asleep.
I would be insanely happy to permamently get rid of subvoc in real world.
Short reminder regarding section above: one can think without internal voice.
That voice can be just as much hard to evade.
81.190.231.67 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [2010 XII] This article feels a bit like someone's joke 

message: Chief Scientist for Neuroengineering at NASA Ames Research Center, Dr. Chuck Jorgensen, has suggested that it could have potential applications for rescue operations people, security and special operations forces, people with vocal cord problems, and might even find a place in gaming.
Sure. Just some time after they'll start using it in interrogation with tortures. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [2012] Detection 

message: Cleaned the article a bit for it to be easy to read. It is still biased against what simply exists (if we ignore minute muscle movements and concetrate just on the inner voice), but wording is more "maybe" now. There are no words needed to feel something, think or remember placement. While correcting this article I have read some sentences instantly. Some sentences almost instantly with sound of a couple words catched by accident. Reverting to imagining sounds sometimes can feel just awful even though I usually subvocalize. It seems some people do not see such possibility. Then, new books get written. But at the same time not all claims of speedreading marketers are to be trusted, oh no. SafetyControl (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [2015 IX] Streamlined but merge is a good idea 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Subvocalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070115091615/http://www.tfot.info:80/content/view/80/58/ to http://www.tfot.info/content/view/80/58/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone have a reliable source on this? All I can find are conspiracies that the government has this technology or unreliable blogs. Also, the section seems to claim it is possible rather than just a hypothetical. Can't find any sources where subvocalization brain activity was linked to particular words or sentences either.
--Malanet (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a related patent granted to Facebook in 2020: , and a journal article from a Springer publication in 2016:  --Gmarmstrong (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthetic Telepathy