On Monday 22 October 2007 08:48:20 pm, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Still don't buy it. What the article amounts to is that "speed-reading" is > > fake. No kind of recognition beyond skimming (e.g. just ignoring a > > substantial proportion of the text) is called for to explain the observed > > performance. > > And I'm saying nevermind articles, try it for yourself. I tried the > experiment, before I wrote that earlier post, it's easy to do. You'll > find you do in fact recognize (I'm making no claims about rate of > comprehension or retention, I'm only addressing the question of > recognition) many words simultaneously, in parallel, without needing > to saccade serially to each one.
Still don't buy it. Saccades are normally well below the conscious level, and a vast majority of what goes on cognitively is not available to introspection. Any good reader gets to the point where the sentence meanings, not the words at all, are the only thing that breaks into the conscious level. (you can read with essentially complete semantic comprehension and still be quite unable to repeat any of the text verbatim.) BTW, I'm not trying to say that no concurrent recognition happens in the brain -- I'm sure that it does. I merely maintain that I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that it occurs in that particular part of vision. Josh ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=56509948-3b75bb
