Using technology to change how we read

[gmw]

I thought this article from Scientific American was interesting: Using Technology to Break the Speed Barrier of Reading

It's not the speed thing that intrigues me so much as the idea that our current reading methods are the result of technological constraints that we may now be able to overcome.

Some snippets:

While cramming symbols tightly together may have seemed like a brilliant way to save on parchment, scientists are now beginning to understand that this design decision runs afoul of the way the brain processes visual information.

Then, in a comprehensive study of over 100 high school students with dyslexia done in 2013, using techniques that included eye tracking, we were able to confirm that the shortened line formats produced a benefit for many who otherwise struggled with reading.

In our laboratory, we are investigating a potential re-design for reading that intends to break through the brain’s speed barrier for comprehension. We intend to do this by building on the neurological circuits for auditory processing, and use these in parallel with reading. Here, people read using a highly accelerated visual presentation of the text (e.g., using RSVP or RAP), while at the same time they listen to a highly compressed auditory rendering of the same text, using compressed text-to-speech.

[wodin]

It might work for reading for some sort of productivity like studying or work, but for reading for enjoyment? Not so much!

Besides that my Amazon bill is high enough already, think what it would be if I increased my reading efficiency by x%.

[fjtorres]

The use of the auditory channel is one reason TTS is so valuable to dyslexics and slow readers. Now tell that to the tradpubs who block TTS on their titles.

[cvkemp]

I am not a fast reader and have no reason to be one. I have taken speed reading classes, and it did help me some to get my training I needed. I am retired now and I love to read novels and Bible studies. But my career was technical so I had to read a lot everyday to do my research just to be able to troubleshoot and repair electronic devices and also to troubleshoot software and applications. I still love all kinds of devices and apps but I no longer do much troubleshooting. I have better things to do with my life. For me reading means enjoying a good book.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The use of the auditory channel is one reason TTS is so valuable to dyslexics and slow readers. Now tell that to the tradpubs who block TTS on their titles.

I was going to listen to GOT on a road trip. I couldn't do that.

[gmw]

What interests me with the article is the idea that the way we read now is not some art or talent perfected over time, instead it is something we have inherited as a legacy of the language, technological and material constraints of history. Much as many people here now believe that paper books are redundant and wasteful, a historical tradition we no longer need, could it be that even the way we read might (eventually) go the same way?

I understand, and fully agree with, the sentiments about reading for pleasure - it doesn't have to be fast. On the other hand, if it is really possible to read faster with full comprehension and enjoyment then where's the downside?

[fjtorres]

Part of what they're addressing is typographical convention and part is cognitive science.
Some folks seem to think typographical conventions are laws of nature and what these researchers are saying is that cognitive science says otherwise. That current conventions about white space, scan width, font size, etc, are products of the specific limitations of the technology of the codex and not necessarily binding on other technologies.
Maybe scrolling text can be more effective than paging, maybe single line crawlers can reduce eye strain, maybe a different form of text presentation can be more useful.

It's something worth exploring but I wouldn't expect definitive answers soon.
They may have to work with children to get past cultural bias and the tyranny of the familiar.

[Ken Maltby]

Why do I have visions of "The Ipcress File"?? And I thought "Common Core" was a bad idea.

Luck;
Ken

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by gmw

What interests me with the article is the idea that the way we read now is not some art or talent perfected over time, instead it is something we have inherited as a legacy of the language, technological and material constraints of history. Much as many people here now believe that paper books are redundant and wasteful, a historical tradition we no longer need, could it be that even the way we read might (eventually) go the same way?

I understand, and fully agree with, the sentiments about reading for pleasure - it doesn't have to be fast. On the other hand, if it is really possible to read faster with full comprehension and enjoyment then where's the downside?

I typically read a 230 page novel in about six hours.
Text books and nonfiction I read faster.

My reading budget has to stretch as it is (thank heaven for public domain) and reading faster just sounds expensive.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I typically read a 230 page novel in about six hours.
Text books and nonfiction I read faster.

My reading budget has to stretch as it is (thank heaven for public domain) and reading faster just sounds expensive.

The last sentence hits the nail squarely on the head.

[Froide]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I typically read a 230 page novel in about six hours.
Text books and nonfiction I read faster.

My reading budget has to stretch as it is (thank heaven for public domain) and reading faster just sounds expensive.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

The last sentence hits the nail squarely on the head.

Would not joining one or more well-stocked library systems remove (or significantly reduce) the cost factor associated with reading faster (and therefore, with reading more books)?

[GeoffR]

Being able to read faster doesn't mean you have to read faster.

It is like riding a bicycle: new technology allows for lighter frames and more closely-spaced gears which allows me to ride faster. But that doesn't mean I have to ride faster, I can instead just cruise along slowly and enjoy being able to get up hills a bit easier, or I can ride at my usual speed and carry a heavier load of groceries.

[gmw]

Froide and GeoffR raise excellent points. I'd also add that if I could read faster I could fit more hours of sleep in the day. Plus, at the risk of sounding like I have some bias or alternative agenda , I'd also suggest that there is a huge amount of material now available for free or much lower cost from independent publishers (not all of it is crap, and if you can read faster you can review and discard faster), as well as more old material falling into the public domain every year, so running short of reading based on cost doesn't seem a huge problem.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

What interests me with the article is the idea that the way we read now is not some art or talent perfected over time, instead it is something we have inherited as a legacy of the language, technological and material constraints of history.

It's a combination of the two. For example, the article says:

In a comprehensive study of over 100 high school students with dyslexia done in 2013, using techniques that included eye tracking, we were able to confirm that the shortened line formats produced a benefit for many who otherwise struggled with reading.

It's been known for centuries that short lines increase reading speed. That's precisely why newspapers are printed in narrow columns.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

[...] It's been known for centuries that short lines increase reading speed. That's precisely why newspapers are printed in narrow columns.

That last sentence seems an odd conclusion to make, since it appears that for at least the last 120 years (see this link) research has indicated that somewhere between 3 and 4 inches is optimal. Most newspapers I've seen here have columns around 2 inches wide (well, to be honest, I've measured only the one I had nearby just now, but I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed a newspaper with 4 inch columns). Wouldn't it seem that newspapers must have other reasons for choosing their non-optimal column widths? (Like, maybe, selling advertising space.)

Something odd from that link above (in this post) is research suggesting optimal line lengths for computer monitors were longer (maybe because they're usually further from the eye? the linked article doesn't say). It seems there is more to it that simple line length (such as some of the other facets from the link in the OP).