Effects of reading span and textual coherence on rapid-sequential reading

Subjects’ Comprehension and Memory of Conventional Presentations (Pages) And Rapid, Serial Visual Presentations (Rsvps) Of Text Were Investigated With A Statement-Recognition Test. Texts Were Presented With Sentences in An Intact Or A Scrambled Order At Rates Of 300 And 600 Words Per Minute (Wpm). Subjects’ Memory for Text Meaning And Surface Structure Was Better In 300-Than In 600-Wpm Conditions, And Subjects Retained More Textual Meaning From Coherent than Incoherent Texts Regardless of Display Rates. These Findings Are Inconsistent With the Idea That Rapid Reading Disrupts the Intersentence Integration Processes of Comprehension, but are Consistent With The Hypothesis of Consolidation Limitation: Furthermore, Subjects Were Separated Into Two Groups Based on Their Performance on the Reading Span Test of Daneman And Carpenter (1980). Low-Span Subjects Retained Significantly Less Text Meaning than High-Span Subjects with Pages, But They Did Almost As Well With RSVPs. This Interaction Suggests that the RSVP Technique Could Be Useful For Improving the Reading Abilities of Less Efficient Readers.

[1]  D. Willows.  Reading between the Lines: Selective Attention in Good and Poor Readers. , 1974 .

[2]  D. Lawrence.  Two studies of visual search for word targets with controlled rates of presentation* , 1971 .

[3]  M. Masson.  Conceptual processing of text during skimming and rapid sequential reading , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[4]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[5]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Meaningful-interpretation effects on codes of nonsense pictures. , 1978 .

[6]  J. Sachs.  Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse , 1967 .

[7]  William Anderson McCall,et al.  Standard Test Lessons in Reaping , 1925, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[8]  J. Juola,et al.  Visual search and reading of rapid serial presentations of letter strings, words, and text. , 1982 .

[9]  M. Masson,et al.  Working memory and individual differences in comprehension and memory of text. , 1983 .

[10]  J. Juola,et al.  Reading with and without eye movements: reply to Just, Carpenter, and Woolley. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Dale M. Willows,et al.  Individual differences in distraction by pictures in a reading situation. , 1978 .

[12]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual Differences in Integrating Information between and within Sentences. , 1983 .

[13]  Hsuan-Chih Chen,et al.  Effects of presentation complexity on rapid-sequential reading , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  E. B. Huey.  The Psychology And Pedagogy Of Reading , 1908 .

[15]  A Yonas,et al.  The effects of the reader's skill and the difficulty of the text on the perceptual span in reading. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension , 1982 .

[17]  Lesgold AlanM.,et al.  Interactive processes in reading comprehension , 1978 .

[18]  F. Richard Ferraro,et al.  READING WITH AND WITHOUT EYE MOVEMENTS , 1987 .

[19]  J F Juola,et al.  Factors influencing readability of rapidly presented text segments , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[20]  P. Thorndyke.  Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  L. C. Gilbert.  Saccadic movements as a factor in visual perception in reading. , 1959 .

[22]  K. Pezdek,et al.  Development differences in the role of detail in picture recognition memory. , 1982, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[23]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Summarizing scrambled stories , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Bruno G. Breitmeyer,et al.  1 – Sensory Masking, Persistence, and Enhancement in Visual Exploration and Reading , 1983 .