Some speed-reading apps make big claims. But how fast can humans actually read?
A plethora of apps, videos and books say we have the capacity to read at breakneck speed. The science says something different.
Speed-reading applications often make bold claims about dramatically increasing reading speeds, but scientific evidence suggests otherwise. A 2019 study analyzed 190 studies on adult English non-fiction reading and found typical silent reading rates of 175-300 words per minute, rising to 200-320 for fiction. These findings contradict claims that the upper limit of human reading speed is much higher.
During reading, our eyes make rapid saccades, or jumps, interrupted by fixations where visual processing occurs. Fixations last about 200-300 milliseconds but vary based on word familiarity. The perceptual span is limited to about two to three letters to the left and seven to eight to the right of fixation. Claims that readers can process 10-14 words per fixation are thus at odds with the evidence.
Some speed-reading apps, like Bionic Reading, BeeLine Reader, and Spritz, claim to boost speed by altering text display. However, research shows these apps have minimal impact on reading rates and may even hinder comprehension. For instance, a 2024 study found no significant difference in reading rate or comprehension between Bionic Reading users and traditional readers.
Another study showed that while Beeline Reader helped second-grade readers progress through dense text, it did not improve comprehension for third-grade readers and was less convenient for them. A 2015 study comparing Spritz to traditional reading found no difference in reading rates but noted impaired recall.
Using a computer model of reading called E-Z Reader, researchers simulated conditions that theoretically could increase reading speed to 429 words per minute by eliminating eye movements and allowing instant visual processing. However, this boost is far from practical. The findings suggest that while speed-reading apps may offer some minor improvements, they fall short of the dramatic claims made by their proponents.
Written by urgent.news from The Conversation AU's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
