4 ms·
300 words/minute looks awfully slow to me. I can speak faster than that. Reading speed can be much faster than speech, especially if you get rid of subvocalizat
by steadicat 16y ago
300 words/minute looks awfully slow to me. I can speak faster than that. Reading speed can be much faster than speech, especially if you get rid of subvocalization ("speaking" words in your head as you read).
I don't see the advantage of flashing a word at a time. Reading works best when the eye can scan a bunch of words simultaneously. If anything, I'd try flashing a line of text at a time.
- boredguy8 16y ago300 wpm is average reading. Speaking at 300 wpm with clarity takes a lot of practice, and most listeners require practice to comprehend that rate of speech. Research shows that with compression (i.e. articulate speech sped up, 'contentless' gaps removed), people without training lose comprehension of spoken word at about 210 wpm. Unless you're talking with former debaters, I'd slow down that speech a little. Even if you live in New York!
- jerf 16y agoAt first I thought, "Really? 300 wpm is average? I tried that setting and it's pretty slow." So I checked it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(process)#Reading_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(process)#Reading_rate If anything, that's the high end of average! Holy cow. I was getting bored and consequently losing focus at 300wpm. No wonder "people" don't like to read, if a huge chunk of "people" can't even go that fast.
- Tekhne 16y agoUnfortunately, I don't have source in front of me, but I've read some research that indicates that subvocalization is actually necessary for full comprehension, and that claims to the contrary are apocryphal. It's probably best to investigate before trying to eliminate subvocalization.