Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!pierce!topaz!gaynor From: gaynor@topaz.ARPA (Gaynor) Newsgroups: net.cog-eng Subject: Re: Re: Speed Reading Message-ID: <2666@topaz.ARPA> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 02:53:37 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.2666 Posted: Thu Jul 11 02:53:37 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:34:24 EDT References: <1573@orca.UUCP> <292@ucdavis.UUCP> <1222@mnetor.UUCP> Organization: The NJ Home for Perverted Hackers Lines: 21 In article <1222@mnetor.UUCP>, sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: ...a program flashing one word at a time producing some increase in speed with no loss of comprehension, by decreasing the total amount of eye-movements (paraphrase)... > Were any optometrists' opinion asked on these matters? I am sure that > even if there are some short term gains to be had from this kind of > technique, the long-term side-effects (reduced vision due to lack of > exercise of eye muscles) probably far outweigh them. Some speculation: I wouldn't think there would be a significant weakening of the eye muscles due to the amount of use they see :-), and I also think that the significant portion of one's reading would still be of the normal type. I wonder at the original posting, though. The time saved by the reduction of eye-movements offsets the savings from expections of what's to be read by periphal lookahead?