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?