Brain research shows adults read words by sound, not sight, just really fast!

[ElizabethB]

I have long suspected this, now I have found an article linked from Don Potter’s page that shows the science behind this!!

 

It is called “The Massive Impact of Literacy on the Brain and its Consequences for Education†by Stanislas Dehaene.

 

http://www.unicog.org/publications/Dehaene%20Review%20Cognitive%20neuroscience%20of%20Reading%20and%20Education%202011.pdf

 

The part about this is on page 23, but the whole article is interesting.  His other articles are also interesting, he has a ton about reading and the brain and math and the brain.  He also has a few books that I have reserved at my library and am looking forward to reading.

 

The other most fascinating thing in the article was about how and why most children have b/d and other mirror letter confusion.  Another article, I don’t think this it was this one, said it usually clears up within 2 years of instruction except for dyslexia but most children have mirror letter confusions of some degree and it is only dyslexia in a small number of cases.

 

This article was the most comprehensive for reading, but the others were also interesting and informative.

 

Here is a list of his books and below that his articles, most of his articles can be viewed online:

 

http://www.unicog.org/biblio/Author/DEHAENE-S.html

Edited December 10, 2015 by ElizabethB

[ElizaG]

According to the article, research (not necessarily new) suggests that in adult readers, words are first perceived visually as a set of shapes, rather than as a single shape. Then these shapes somehow get put back together and translated into sound.

 

It doesn't say which comes first, though - the "putting shapes together into a recognizable whole" (e.g., a morpheme, or word, or even a phrase), or the "turning into inner speech." Or if it varies. This seems to be the crux of the question of how we actually read. There's some mention of related research at the end of page 22 and the beginning of page 23, and I made some attempt to follow up on it, but my sad case of mommy brain got lost at "non-contiguous bigrams," LOL.

 

There were already substantial arguments for the existence of inner speech. For one thing, until early modern times, most people could only read aloud; silent reading was considered an unusual skill. The "new" parts include the observation that reading involves the activation of specific areas of the brain, which are related to spoken language. And also the identification of areas that appear to be changed permanently by alphabetic literacy (again, the existence of such changes has long been argued based on real-world observation; see e.g. the writings of Walter J. Ong, SJ).

 

Interesting stuff - thanks for posting. :-)

[ElizabethB]

I had to read it through a few times because of mommy brain, too, and his articles in technical journals with brain pictures are even worse!

 

A bigram is a letter team, th or oa for example. I had not seen the term bigram before, he is French so maybe he made up an English word for a french term for letter team, who knows!

[ElizabethB]

This article of his shows what happened in the brains of illiterate adults that were taught to read:

 

http://www.unicog.org/publications/Dehaene_Cohen_Morais_Kolinsky_IlliteratetoliterateChangesinducedbyreadingacquisitionNa%20ReviewsNeuroscience2015.pdf

[Heartsjoy]

This is a great article for understanding what is happening as our children are learning to read.

[ElizabethB]

OK, he didn't make up bigram, but its explanation is technical and it is in a language domain I have not studied much.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigram

[ElizaG]

OK, he didn't make up bigram, but its explanation is technical and it is in a language domain I have not studied much.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigram

Yes, it gets very technical very fast. It also seems as if the research in that area has been motivated more by efforts at developing AI, than by pure science or the desire to teach reading more effectively. (No big surprise there, I guess!)

 

A "non-contiguous bigram" is a pair of letters in a word (or other kinds of tokens in another kind of string) that aren't next to each other, such as BR, BD, and ID in "bird." Of course, this contradicts the Wikipedia definition of "bigram," but there you have it.

 

They don't seem like much of a team, at first glance. But apparently the latest thinking is that we read by crunching bigrams - contiguous or not - in our VFWAs. While re-aligning our warp coils, no doubt. :-D

[ElizaG]

This blog post was the last straw for me:

 

http://orthoblography.blogspot.com/2008/05/following-whitneys-and-graingers.html

 

The comments from the ever-chipper spambots are pretty funny. :-)

 

I guess this bigram thing would help to explain why we can read familiar words that have the letters jumbled, as long as the first and last letters are in the right place. Neither phonics, nor recognition of whole word shapes, would let us do that. Neat.

[ElizabethB]

They don't seem like much of a team, at first glance. But apparently the latest thinking is that we read by crunching bigrams - contiguous or not - in our VFWAs. While re-aligning our warp coils, no doubt. :-D

 

Re-aligning our warp coils!!!  Good thing I was not drinking water while reading that...

[ElizabethB]

This blog post was the last straw for me:

 

http://orthoblography.blogspot.com/2008/05/following-whitneys-and-graingers.html

 

The comments from the ever-chipper spambots are pretty funny. :-)

 

I guess this bigram thing would help to explain why we can read familiar words that have the letters jumbled, as long as the first and last letters are in the right place. Neither phonics, nor recognition of whole word shapes, would let us do that. Neat.

 

At least the spambots speak English! :)

 

That blog post is not English.  

 

And I agree, that is a good explanation for those jumbled sentence tricks.

[Sarah0000]

Well that explains why my beginner speller kept placing the first and last letters first in words and then filling in the middle, if he uses tiles instead of writing.

[ElizabethB]

Well that explains why my beginner speller kept placing the first and last letters first in words and then filling in the middle, if he uses tiles instead of writing.

In one of the articles, he talks about how writing stores things better in the brain than typing or letter tiles. Of course, you can only do so much writing with a young student before they melt down, so it is a balance...

[J-rap]

 

There were already substantial arguments for the existence of inner speech. For one thing, until early modern times, most people could only read aloud; silent reading was considered an unusual skill.

 

That's interesting.  Do you know of any papers or articles that discuss this?

[ElizabethB]

That's interesting. Do you know of any papers or articles that discuss this?

Geraldine Rodgers' History of Beginnng has a section about this.

 

Of course, it is over 1,000 pages long, so she digresses into tons of fascinating rabbit trails.

 

http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000281603/The-History-of-Beginning-Reading.aspx

Edited December 11, 2015 by ElizabethB

[Kalmia]

There is a video of Dahaene lecturing on this topic on YouTube. Might be helpful for those suffering from mommy brain.

 

[ElizaG]

That's interesting. Do you know of any papers or articles that discuss this?

Here's a chapter from a different book about the history of reading:

 

http://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Manguel/Silent_Readers.html

 

And a page that quotes some other sources:

 

http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/reader/2.htm

 

Some of this gets into a related topic - the introduction of word spacing. It's hard to see how anyone could read quickly when the text was all run together. But it seems that in classical and medieval times, both Romans and Christians were often reading works that they'd already learned by listening to someone else recite them. I guess that would also have been true of the early primers (which contained common prayers).

[J-rap]

Here's a chapter from a different book about the history of reading:

 

http://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Manguel/Silent_Readers.html

 

And a page that quotes some other sources:

 

http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/reader/2.htm

 

Some of this gets into a related topic - the introduction of word spacing. It's hard to see how anyone could read quickly when the text was all run together. But it seems that in classical and medieval times, both Romans and Christians were often reading works that they'd already learned by listening to someone else recite them. I guess that would also have been true of the early primers (which contained common prayers).

 

Wow, that is really fascinating!  It never occurred to me that this is a discipline people had to learn how to do, and that it wasn't even approved of early on.  

 

I have a particular interest in this topic, because my husband lost all of his language in a brain injury, and is relearning everything.  The thing he has difficulty with still is silent reading, or saying a word in his mind, thus the beginnings of my interest in this topic...

 

[ElizabethB]

[quote name="ElizaG" post="6726112" timestamp="1449848127

 

Some of this gets into a related topic - the introduction of word spacing. It's hard to see how anyone could read quickly when the text was all run together. But it seems that in classical and medieval times, both Romans and Christians were often reading works that they'd already learned by listening to someone else recite them. I guess that would also have been true of the early primers (which contained common prayers).

 

I actually practiced this and after a few paragraphs could read as quickly as with normal text, I think my work with syllables helped. I read 700 - 900 WPM.

 

Also, reading older texts with words spelled randomly, same thing. At first, my reading speed was really slow, then I got used to it and could read it almost as fast as normal text, although every once in a while a really interesting spelling would make me stop and think.

[ElizabethB]

The hardest thing to get used to and be able to read fast, for me, was George MacDonalds original writings in Scots dialect, it took several chapters for me to read at my normal reading speed, here is a sample:

 

"I canna min' a word o' 't, Annie. I'm dreidfu' hungry, forbye. I was in a hurry wi' my brakfast the day. Gin I had kent what was comin', I wad hae laid in a better stock," he added, laughing rather drearily.

 

As he spoke he looked up; and his eyes wandered from one window to another for a few moments after he had ceased speaking.

 

"Na; it's no use," he resumed at last. "I hae eaten ower muckle for that, ony gait."

[ElizabethB]

I'm trying to think about how this would work when a person reads in sections of text, not word by word or even line by line.

I have no idea, but besides myself I know 2 people who read near 1,000 words per minute and we hear the sounds of words as we read. I have never met an actual person who read that fast. I have always wondered why the sounds seem normal and not chipmonk speed, though!

Edited December 13, 2015 by ElizabethB

[ElizabethB]

I'm trying to think about how this would work when a person reads in sections of text, not word by word or even line by line.

Ok, I just got his book, "Reading in the Brain."

 

I don't think people are actually reading like that based on studies that he goes into in the first chapter, I have read half of the first chapter so far. They replaced test with x's randomly outside of of a few characters to the left and 15 characters to the right of what people were reading on a computer as people were reading and no one noticed! Based on a study by McConkie and Rayner, they tried this on a bunch of different people and found that eye movements and focusing were limited to this area. They also found that with the computer adapting to this field of view, "If a full sentence is presented, word by word, at the precise point where the gaze is focalized, thus avoiding the need for eye movements, a good reader can read at a staggering speed--a mean of 1100 words per minute, and up to sixteen hundred words per minute for the best readers."

[geodob]

When a fluent reader reads, they actually read in 'word blocks'.

Where the key factor, is with developing a comprehensive vocabulary of commonly used written words.

 

So that our eyes can then form 'word blocks', by grouping known words together.

Perhaps you could observe how your eyes move across the line as you read?

Where most likely they don't move from one word to the next?

Rather they will move from one block/ group to next?

But something else that you might try?

Is to focus your eyes on a word in any line?

Without moving your eyes?

Try to read the words on each side of the word you are focused on?

Try it on different words/ lines?

 

When you do this, you will find that their is limit to how many words you can read either side?

But this can be more accurately defined in letters, rather than words.

How many letters you can see from left to right, without moving your eyes?

Will define the width of your visual focus.

But an important thing with this?
Is that with simply practicing looking for letters to the left and right, without moving our eyes?

That most often we can significantly increase the width of our focus.

As we have never explored how much we can actually see clearly?

 

Though another important thing, relates to 'inner speech'?

Where we sound out the words in our mind, as we read them.

But with common words that we know, we can cognize them without sounding them out in our mind.

We only need to see the word, to understand it.

Which comes back to reading in 'word blocks'.

Where we don't need to sound out every word in a word block.

Words like: a, and, the, to, etc. Only need to be seen in the background.

 

So that when reading? Instead of sounding every word?  We can use this more selectively, and just sound out the 'keywords' in word block.

But this 'sounding out', can also be used in different ways?

Where many words can be slurred, rather than clearly announced.

So that only 'keywords' in a word block, are clearly sounded out.

 

Where clearly sounding out keywords, serves as a 'highlighter'?

These highlighted words, are what are sent to and retained in short term memory.

Which then collectively form comprehension.

 

Though reading something 'technical', uses a different way of reading? As keywords may need to be paused at, and reflected on.

Where I would suggest that we need to learn how to read in different ways, and then be able to choose the way that we read. Depending on what we are actually reading?

[geodob]

Wow, that is really fascinating!  It never occurred to me that this is a discipline people had to learn how to do, and that it wasn't even approved of early on.  

 

I have a particular interest in this topic, because my husband lost all of his language in a brain injury, and is relearning everything.  The thing he has difficulty with still is silent reading, or saying a word in his mind, thus the beginnings of my interest in this topic...

 

 

J-rap,

I was particularly interested in your reply?

As for nearly 8 years, I've been doing qualitative study and research into what might be termed as 'inner speech'.

With the support of various universities and organizations.

Also importantly, with the help from over 100 participants in the study.  Who never developed the ability to use 'inner speech'.

Where I've been studying and researching the 'developmental process', and also methods to support development at a 'later age'?

Which has mostly involved children and teenagers.

Though I was particularly interested in your husband having lost his ability to use inner speech, as a result of brain injury?

While he has a difficulty with 'silent reading'.

His loss of the ability to 'say a word in his mind', is of particular concern and interest to me?

As the effect of this on 'thinking', has been a major focus of my study.

Though for people who never developed 'inner speech'?

They develop a different way of thinking.  Which is essentially a Visual way of thinking.

Which has some significant limitations.

Though for your husband, he has experienced a sudden loss of his inner speech.

So that he also suddenly has to find and develop a new way of thinking?

Which would be a major challenge?

But a crucial thing, is that inner speech is actually an 'acquired skill'.

So that it is possible that your husband might be able to acquire it again?

 

J-rap, I wonder if you and husband might like to be involved in my study?

Which involve a comprehensive program.

That begins with identifying what he can or can't do with his 'inner speech' ?

Starting with his ability to 'capture and recall a sound'?

Though I would outline the program that we would work through.

[J-rap]

J-rap,

I was particularly interested in your reply?

As for nearly 8 years, I've been doing qualitative study and research into what might be termed as 'inner speech'.

With the support of various universities and organizations.

Also importantly, with the help from over 100 participants in the study.  Who never developed the ability to use 'inner speech'.

Where I've been studying and researching the 'developmental process', and also methods to support development at a 'later age'?

Which has mostly involved children and teenagers.

Though I was particularly interested in your husband having lost his ability to use inner speech, as a result of brain injury?

While he has a difficulty with 'silent reading'.

His loss of the ability to 'say a word in his mind', is of particular concern and interest to me?

As the effect of this on 'thinking', has been a major focus of my study.

Though for people who never developed 'inner speech'?

They develop a different way of thinking.  Which is essentially a Visual way of thinking.

Which has some significant limitations.

Though for your husband, he has experienced a sudden loss of his inner speech.

So that he also suddenly has to find and develop a new way of thinking?

Which would be a major challenge?

But a crucial thing, is that inner speech is actually an 'acquired skill'.

So that it is possible that your husband might be able to acquire it again?

 

J-rap, I wonder if you and husband might like to be involved in my study?

Which involve a comprehensive program.

That begins with identifying what he can or can't do with his 'inner speech' ?

Starting with his ability to 'capture and recall a sound'?

Though I would outline the program that we would work through.

 

I will PM you.

 

[Cake and Pi]

This is all extremely interesting!  I'm over here self-analyzing, lol.

 

geodob, I find your comments fascinating!    I used to only think in pictures and had a difficult time learning to read.  I was able to write 6yo, but couldn't read -- even my own writing -- until 9yo.  I had to learn to think in words, and it was very hard!  I still often have problems pulling out words for everyday objects.  I have the picture in my mind but I can't put a sound to it and it can be very frustrating.  I'm pretty sure I learned to read by memorizing entire words (I remember once a teacher was writing on the board what she spoke as she said it and said had just said "your" and started to write but stopped when only "you" was written because she was interrupted by a question.  I recognized the word and was confused why she wrote "you" but said "your."  Then she continued by adding an "r" and the word magically became "your" and I went, whoa!!! You can turn "you" into "your" by putting an R at the end!?!)  But I can now read the jumbled words mentioned above so that can't be how I read now...  I can't read things written in new fonts though.  Every time I encounter a word written in a different type font or a new person's handwriting that is much different from previous experiences, I have to say each letter out loud for the word, and then I know what word it is. (I say each letter for each word as I write or type it too, but I was pretty sure that's what everybody does.  DH says that he doesn't, and I'm not sure which of us is the weird one.)  My youngest son (2y 3m old) has a significant receptive speech delay (about a 50% delay) and is actually able to say more than he understands, so I find myself trying to find correlations between us... If I'm being honest, I'm really just trying to come up with an explanation for his delays that does not involve ASD or cognitive impairment.  I'm anticipating a long road for teaching him to read when the time comes.

[ElizabethB]

This is all extremely interesting! I'm over here self-analyzing, lol.

 

geodob, I find your comments fascinating! I used to only think in pictures and had a difficult time learning to read. I was able to write 6yo, but couldn't read -- even my own writing -- until 9yo. I had to learn to think in words, and it was very hard! I still often have problems pulling out words for everyday objects. I have the picture in my mind but I can't put a sound to it and it can be very frustrating. I'm pretty sure I learned to read by memorizing entire words (I remember once a teacher was writing on the board what she spoke as she said it and said had just said "your" and started to write but stopped when only "you" was written because she was interrupted by a nquestion. I recognized the word and was confused why she wrote "you" but said "your." Then she continued by adding an "r" and the word magically became "your" and I went, whoa!!! You can turn "you" into "your" by putting an R at the end!?!) But I can now read the jumbled words mentioned above so that can't be how I read now... I can't read things written in new fonts though. Every time I encounter a word written in a different type font or a new person's handwriting that is much different from previous experiences, I have to say each letter out loud for the word, and then I know what word it is. (I say each letter for each word as I write or type it too, but I was pretty sure that's what everybody does. DH says that he doesn't, and I'm not sure which of us is the weird one.) My youngest son (2y 3m old) has a significant receptive speech delay (about a 50% delay) and is actually able to say more than he understands, so I find myself trying to find correlations between us... If I'm being honest, I'm really just trying to come up with an explanation for his delays that does not involve ASD or cognitive impairment. I'm anticipating a long road for teaching him to read when the time comes.

You should get his book, Reading in the Brain, there is a large section in the first chapter talking about how the brain recogizes different fonts as letters.

[Cake and Pi]

You should get his book, Reading in the Brain, there is a large section in the first chapter talking about how the brain recogizes different fonts as letters.

 

I just requested it from the library!

[Bluegoat]

I have no idea, but besides myself I know 2 people who read near 1,000 words per minute and we hear the sounds of words as we read. I have never met an actual person who read that fast. I have always wondered why the sounds seem normal and not chipmonk speed, though!

 

THis is true for me.  I see the block of text all at once, usually a sort of paragraph, but I hear the words.

[ElizabethB]

THis is true for me. I see the block of text all at once, usually a sort of paragraph, but I hear the words.

And yours are not chipmonky sounding, either? That is really interesting!!

Edited December 14, 2015 by ElizabethB

[Renai]

THis is true for me.  I see the block of text all at once, usually a sort of paragraph, but I hear the words.

 

That's how I see it to.

 

And yours are not chipmonky sounding, either? That is really interesting!!

 

No chipmonky voices here. This is a timely topic as just last week I was wondering about this. I guess I'm a weird nerd or something to just ponder something like that off the top of my head, but I was wondering how I was reading, and how I hear my voice in my head as I read. When I see the block of text, my voice moves slower than my actual reading. The voice in my head doesn't always finish what my eyes have seen before moving to the next block of text, but I still know what I've read. That's what seemed interesting to me. So, I've been following this thread since it began.

[Bluegoat]

And yours are not chipmonky sounding, either? That is really interesting!!

 

No.  I think that would really put me off reading.

 

I do find that if I try to rush through text for some reason, the "voice" will skip words or groups of words.  I seem to focus on what I think are key words ad phrases, but I doubt its reliable, I am probably mising content at that point.

[Stellalarella]

Thank you for posting the original links.  This is helpful to me as now I can better visualize how my 7 year old is learning to read.

[ElizabethB]

Thank you for posting the original links. This is helpful to me as now I can better visualize how my 7 year old is learning to read.

His book, Reading in the Brain, is even more informative and interesting!

[ReadingMama1214]

THis is true for me. I see the block of text all at once, usually a sort of paragraph, but I hear the words.

This is true for me as well. I can see the entire paragraph and even recognize what it say, but hear word by word. I always get impatient at museums and exhibits and such when my husband seems to take a ridiculously long time to read what I read in seconds.