bionic reading research

Does Bionic Reading actually work? We timed over 2,000 readers and the results might surprise you

tl;dr. Actually no, the results will probably not surprise you. After analyzing data from 2,074 testers, we found no evidence that Bionic Reading has any positive effect on reading speed. In fact, participants read 2.6 words per minute slower on average with Bionic Reading than without. That said, the difference here is so small (less than 1%), that the real takeaway is Bionic Reading has no impact on reading speed.

In June 2022, we posted an experiment to Hacker News, Reddit, and Twitter to test the claim that Bionic Reading enables you to read faster without any loss of comprehension. Part 1 of this series described in-depth the motivation, the claim, and the experiment design. In this Part 2, we're jumping right into the results.

Preliminaries

Participants were asked to read two 1,000 word essays divided into two halves resulting in articles 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. The first font was randomly selected for each tester (either Literata plain, or Literata with Bionic Reading applied) and then alternated from there.

The selected essays were written by the same author (Paul Graham) during the same time period (circa 2010) to minimize variation between articles. The matrix setup depicted above was intended to further control for both inter-article variation (article 1 might be easier/more interesting to read than article 2, or vice versa) and intra-article variation (the beginning of each article might be easier/more interesting to read than the end of each article, or vice versa).

When the cross-matrix reading speeds for each font are averaged, we have a pair of reading speeds per participant that can be fairly compared against one other, isolating the font as the independent variable. We also asked three multiple choice questions at the end of each article half to control for reading comprehension.

Data preparation

As with anything on the internet, completion rates followed a predictable funnel pattern. 3,334 participants completed article 1A and this sample gradually dwindled to 2,074 participants who completed all four.

There are advanced statistical techniques, such as a random effects model, that can take advantage of all the data regardless of whether each participant completed all four halves or not. But for the sake of interpretability, we've decided to disregard any incomplete entries resulting in an initial sample size of n=2074 — still more than enough data to power a robust statistical analysis.

Also as with anything on the internet, there is some junk data which must be removed.

• First, we removed any multiple entries which came from the same IP addresses (37 entries).
• Next, we removed what I call "tirekickers" — curious cats who started the experiment, rapidly scrolled to the bottom, and clicked next to see what happens. We can identify these participants by reading speeds that are humanly impossible, e.g., 2 seconds to get through 500 words. For our purposes here, we used a cutoff of 2,000 words per minute (95 entries).
• Finally, we removed what I call "quitters" — participants who started in earnest but then gave up near the end and rapidly scrolled to the bottom to see their results. For our purposes here, we can identify these participants by reading speeds on 2A or 2B that are 2x greater than their average previous reading speeds on 1A, 1B, and 2A, respectively (20 entries).

This data preparation resulted in a final dataset with n=1916 .

We appreciate that outlier removal is a delicate process that risks introducing bias to the dataset, but we feel confident based on our observing of participants and our subject matter expertise that these entries are invalid. Further, we've made publicly available the anonymized raw data (pre-munging) here in the event you wish to apply your own data preparation steps to run your own analyses or to check our work.

Average speeds per font

As mentioned above, we can now average each participant's results for each font to derive a pair of speeds that can be compared apples-to-apples. Let's quickly explore the summary speed statistics for each font.

As you can see, the average speeds for both fonts (325.3 and 327.9 words per minute, respectively) were virtually identical with non-Bionic Reading actually clocking in approximately 3 words per minute faster. In percentage terms, however, this is a negligible 0.8% difference.

Average speed differences per participant

The beauty of this experiment is that we can perform various "paired" analyses which control not only for reading speed variation across articles and article position, but also reading speed variation across individuals. Observed differences, on average, should be caused by the font rather than any other lurking factor.

The simplest way to look at differences is to subtract each participant's non-Bionic Reading speed from their Bionic Reading speed. If Bionic Reading helps people read faster, we would expect to see a mean difference greater than zero words per minute.

In plain language, this says the opposite: participants in our sample read on average 2.6 words per minute slower with Bionic Reading than without.

Average speed differences per faster font

Since posting this experiment, I've received a lot of side comments along the lines of, "Well, of course I don't expect Bionic Reading to work for most people, but for [my subpopulation], it really works." If that were the case, we might expect to see disproportionate benefits for those participants who read faster with Bionic Reading than for those who read faster without Bionic Reading. Let's look at how many participants read faster with each font and their average speed gains.

The number of people who read faster with Bionic Reading was slightly greater (52%) than the number of people who read faster without Bionic Reading (48%). That said, those who read faster with Bionic Reading only picked up 35 words per minute on average. In contrast, those who read faster without Bionic Reading picked up 43 words per minute. It does not appear that when Bionic Reading works, it really works.

Hypothesis test

Now let's run a paired t-test to test the null hypothesis that the average speed with Bionic Reading equals the average speed without.

In statistical terms, the mean speed difference (M = -2.6, SD = 58.2, N = 1,916) was not significantly different than zero (t = -1.92, two-tail p-value = 0.055), meaning that we fail to reject the null hypothesis. A 95% confidence interval about the mean speed difference is [0.1, -5.2], nearly implying that Bionic Reading actually has a negative impact on reading speed.

In plain language, we almost got a statistically significant result suggesting that Bionic Reading is slower . As mentioned in the introduction, however, we're talking about such small magnitudes here (less than 1% difference) that you can probably walk away with the conclusion that Bionic Reading simply has no effect.

Comprehension

Up until this point, we've been testing reading speed without regard for reading comprehension. Let's quickly explore the summary comprehension statistics for each font.

Like reading speed, comprehension across fonts was virtually identical. In fact, these comprehension numbers were so close that I feared I messed something up. That said, I triple-checked my calculations and they're correct.

These results correspond with common sense and the existing body of research showing that reading comprehension is inversely correlated with reading speed. The faster you read the less you remember and, conversely, the slower you read the more you remember. Because the reading speeds for both fonts were nearly the same in this experiment, we'd expect to see similar comprehension, which is exactly what happened.

Based on the data collected, it's hard to find any evidence whatsoever that Bionic Reading has any impact on reading speed or reading comprehension. Instead, our results seem to corroborate prior research that there's no universal best font, but idiosyncratic configurations might lead to gains on an individual level.

For more on this, see Accelerating Adult Readers with Typeface: A Study of Individual Preferences and Effectiveness and Towards Individuated Reading Experiences: Different Fonts Increase Reading Speed for Different Individuals (both by researchers at Adobe).

Based on the above, you might be thinking: Well then who cares whether Bionic Reading truly lives up to its claims so long as some people like it? Who cares if it's probably just a placebo? It's just one more font. Give the people what they want!

One thing that might not be obvious is that despite my casual usage of the word "font" herein, Bionic Reading is definitely not just another typeface that can be simply licensed and installed. Instead, it's more of a font style that requires making an API call to the diligent patent/trademark holder (and remunerating said IP holder) followed by the injection of all kinds of tags into your markup.

To give you an idea of what this looks like, here's the first sentence of a Paul Graham article with Bionic Reading applied:

Here it is without:

As software developers, is this a dealbreaker? Of course not. But it sure is cumbersome, particularly when you're building an offline app, so we'd prefer a modicum of evidence that the juice is worth the squeeze before introducing all this cost and complexity.

Another thing that might not be obvious is that — despite any skeptical undertones that might come through in these blog posts — we were sincerely hoping that Bionic Reading would be proven effective. We're in the business of reading technology, after all, and we genuinely believe that software has the potential to revolutionize the practice of reading. We're seeking any advantage digital reading might offer over its analog analog to persuade people to make the switch from paper to pixels. This is our mission and the reason we're building reading software in the first place.

For this reason, and because we had so much fun designing and executing this Bionic Reading experiment, we intend to run some more tests in the hopes of discovering a screen reading technique that yields material benefits. We're aware of a couple other technologies that seem interesting including BeeLine Reader, Spritz, and Sans Forgetica.

Are there any we're overlooking? Let us know on Twitter or Hacker News !

Otherwise, stay tuned for our next reading speed experiment 🤓

• The Inventory

Support Quartz

Fund next-gen business journalism with $10 a month

Free Newsletters

Can adjusting font styles really help us read faster?

What if there was a fast and simple way for us to learn to how to read more efficiently?

That’s what Bionic Reading claims to do. The methodology, first developed in 2016, seeks to help distracted adults improve how they parse information by bolding a few letters within a block of text. This typographic trick purportedly shortens the time needed for our brains to process data.

The technique has already gotten a lot of buzz on social media. With the promise of faster, better, deeper, distraction-free reading, Bionic Reading has also received considerable attention from the press. Its most prominent endorsement so far is a spotlight on the World Economic Forum’s website.

But for some, Bionic Reading’s pitch sounds too good to be true. Now several type design experts and researchers are questioning its efficacy.

Processing a few highlighted characters (which its creator, Swiss entrepreneur Renato Casutt, calls “fixation points”) helps us read faster because we don’t have to process full words. Our brains, in theory, complete words and sentences before our eyes can finish reading them.

Though Bionic Reading’s pitch to overburdened readers is laden with references to neuroscience, the reading method has yet to undergo rigorous scientific evaluation.

Casutt launched his big idea after testing it with only a small group of 12 readers, and even then the findings were inconclusive. “The results are not clear,” he reveals on his website, describing a study funded by the Swiss accelerator Innosuisse. “But it can be said that the majority had a positive effect. Of course there were also probands [subjects] who found the effect disturbing”—likely bothered by the irregularities in graphic display.

Bionic Reading, which is available as an API and as a Google Chrome extension, is particularly compelling for people with dyslexia, Casutt asserts, though he reveals that it hasn’t been explicitly tested within this population of readers. Casutt says that he is shaping Bionic Reading based largely on anecdotal evidence from the neurodivergent community, referring to users with dyslexia or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, on social media.

Kicking the tires

Meanwhile, founders of the content organization app Readwise recently conducted an informal, non-peer reviewed pilot study after being bombarded by requests to integrate Bionic Reading on the platform. “This isn’t just some one-off request. I’ve received more tweets, DMs, emails, Discord messages, and survey responses in our history requesting—nay, fiending—that we implement Bionic Reading in our new reading application,” Daniel Doyon, Readwise co-founder, writes in a June 21 blog.

As a hackathon project, Doyon and software developer Mati Tucci created a quick experiment to determine whether Bionic Reading’s method helped people read faster or better. The experiment, however, only showed minimal gains—the 61 participants who took the 20-minute reading test only registered a marginal 4% improvement in reading speeds, and a decrease in comprehension. “There’s not enough evidence to claim that the average reading speed of Bionic Reading is significantly different from the average reading speed of [text displayed in the regular version of the font] Garamond,” Doyon reports.

Readwise is currently conducting another public experiment to further improve its insights about Bionic Reading, which will affect whether it incorporates Bionic Reading into its platform.

Casutt is undeterred by skeptics. To him, attention on social media is enough. “Bionic Reading has gone viral—over 7 million views on TikTok [on] just one post; [It has been] liked and shared millions of times on Twitter,” he explains to Quartz in an email. “I don’t think Bionic Reading would have gone viral if it didn’t make a positive impact for readers. Millions of people, including me, think Bionic Reading works.”

More testing, he says, is coming—though it’s not a priority. “Of course we will develop a study explicitly on Bionic Reading within the ADHD community, but not today and not tomorrow,” Casutt adds. “Studies on how we humans read exist in very, very large number[s].”

Debunking miracle fonts

This isn’t the first time a font has made big promises that some have doubted it could live up to .

In his blog Type Guru , German type designer Ralf Herrmann suggests that Bionic Reading might mirror Sans Forgetica , a typeface that went viral in 2018 for promising to improve our memory by making text intentionally hard to read. Conceived by a team of designers and behavioral scientists at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, its efficacy has since been disproven by a study conducted by researchers at the University of Warwick and the University of Waikato, New Zealand in 2020. Their findings, published in the journal Memory , suggest that Sans Forgetica performed no better than plain old Arial when it comes to information retention.

Mevagh Sanson , a research fellow at University of Waikato and one of the authors of the Sans Forgetica study, says that a series of experiments is necessary to substantiate Bionic Reading’s claims.

“Until there are peer-reviewed, empirical demonstrations of Bionic Reading’s effectiveness published, we would advise that people are better off relying on interventions that have a solid scientific grounding to improve their ability to remember what they read,” she explains in an email to Quartz. “[This includes} reading aloud, or spacing out when they re-read information.”

Sanson adds that the attitude a reader has towards Bionic Reading, say after reading about glowing testimonials on social media, may also have bearing on its efficacy. “If people expect the ‘bionic passages’ to help them, they may try harder, for instance, and feel better about their reading performance—essentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about positive effects of Bionic Reading that actually has little to do with the passage’s visual properties.”

“Generally, there is a cognitive trade-off between processing information more quickly and processing information more deeply or thoroughly,” explains Sanson. “You really can’t improve both at once.”

📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief

Our free, fast, and fun briefing on the global economy, delivered every weekday morning.

Can Bionic Reading make you a speed reader? Not so fast

Assistant Clinical Professor of Human Development, University of Maryland

Disclosure statement

Lauren M. Singer Trakhman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

What if something as simple as bolding parts of a word could make reading a breeze, improving your focus, speed and comprehension?

That’s the claim made by the creators of Bionic Reading , an app that revises texts so that the most concise parts of the words are “highlighted.”

Doing so, according to the makers of the app, directs the eyes to focus on the important parts of the text. Because “your brain reads faster than your eye,” this allows users to read more quickly and efficiently.

Early adopters have raved about the app on social media – including some users with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia . But as an educational psychologist who researches reading in print and digital mediums, I think the hype is overblown – if not misleading.

Shaky claims

On the Bionic Reading website , the inventor, a typographer named Renato Casutt, explains that Bionic Reading was tested independently using 12 participants. He adds that it wasn’t explicitly tested on people with dyslexia.

He then goes on to write that “the results are unclear.” From there, Casutt says Bionic Reading had a positive effect for most participants, but that others found it “disturbing.”

These tests don’t adhere to standard scientific practices. A sample size of 12 is extraordinary small, and it is highly unlikely it would make it past an editor’s desk for peer review at a reputable journal. Casutt doesn’t tell readers what the “positive effect” refers to. Was it reading time? Comprehension? Enjoyment?

The Conversation reached out to Bionic Reading for more clarity and to better understand its methodology. The company did not respond.

The company website’s assertion that the “brain reads faster than the eye” is also deeply flawed. Perhaps it’s a reference to sight words : When someone learns how to read, they normally have many words that they can make sense of via simple recognition, rather than by breaking down the word into individual syllables or sounds. These sight words often appear at a higher frequency in texts at all reading levels.

Either way, what makes reading “slow” is not due to an inability to quickly perceive the words themselves – which is what Bionic Reading claims to fix. Instead, reading takes the time it does due to language processing , which is where our brains turn strings of letters into words and a series of words into meaning.

So no matter how quickly you recognize certain words, your brain still has to do the work to understand the sentence.

Speed at a cost

This isn’t the first time someone has tried to introduce ways to read text more quickly. In fact, educators used to teach speed reading in the 1980s . However, that method faded from curriculums as research showed that faster isn’t always better – nor do the techniques even lead to faster reading in most cases.

Bionic Reading may even hinder readers. Consider the speed-accuracy trade-off , which theorizes that the more quickly one does something, the worse their performance.

My colleagues and I tested this theory for reading comprehension across print and digital mediums. We found, time after time , whether in print or on a screen, the faster someone read a text, the less likely they were to comprehend it .

When people read quickly, they interact with the text on a more superficial level , often skipping over entire sentences or paragraphs and failing to reread important parts of the text.

Tried and true techniques

To help struggling readers, especially those with dyslexia and ADHD, research suggests that one of the most helpful tools can be to simply encourage reading more slowly.

This is the antithesis of Bionic Reading’s argument. However, unlike Bionic Reading, the “read more slowly” school of thought has decades of research supporting it.

Other simple steps, such as following along with your finger or computer mouse , can be helpful for those with reading difficulties, too.

I can understand the allure of Bionic Reading. Information bombards us. Sources of distraction are rampant. But reading proficiency scores were dropping to new lows even before the pandemic. Now is not the time to be valuing speed at the cost of comprehension.

• Pseudoscience
• reading comprehension
• Quick reads

Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Initiatives

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

India Votes 2024

Expelled BJP Minority Morcha leader Usman Ghani arrested in Rajasthan

Canada: Amid anti-immigration rhetoric, curbing international students is a knee-jerk reaction

By mixing Carnatic and Hindustani, Mysore’s kings helped create a unique body of music

‘Be freed from what holds you back’: Poems by Buddhist women from the Murty Classical Library

Why Calcutta HC struck down 25,000 teachers’ appointments and how it could impact the election

Uttarakhand restricts sale of land for agriculture as locals protest tourism infrastructure boom

As protests against Gaza genocide rock US campuses, officials are falling into trap set by the Right

Lok Sabha polls top updates: BJP fields 26/11 prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam from Mumbai North Central seat

We will leave India if told to break encryption: WhatsApp tells Delhi HC

Instant ‘gate-cane’ weddings in parched Marathwada supply desperate labour to sugar industry

Can Bionic Reading make you a speed reader? Here’s what research says

No matter how quickly you recognise certain words, your brain still has to do the work to understand the sentence..

What if something as simple as bolding parts of a word could make reading a breeze, improving your focus, speed and comprehension?

That is the claim made by the creators of Bionic Reading , an app that revises texts so that the most concise parts of the words are “highlighted”.

Doing so, according to the makers of the app, directs the eyes to focus on the important parts of the text. Because “your brain reads faster than your eye”, this allows users to read more quickly and efficiently.

Testing a new @figma plugin with the awesome @bionicreading API - still WIP pic.twitter.com/bmXMs7pRLf — Aaron Iker (@aaroniker_me) May 24, 2022

Early adopters have raved about the app on social media – including some users with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia . But as an educational psychologist who researches reading in print and digital mediums, I think the hype is overblown – if not misleading.

Shaky claims

On the Bionic Reading website , the inventor, a typographer named Renato Casutt, explains that Bionic Reading was tested independently using 12 participants. He adds that it was not explicitly tested on people with dyslexia.

He then goes on to write that “the results are unclear”. From there, Casutt said Bionic Reading had a positive effect for most participants, but that others found it “disturbing”.

These tests do not adhere to standard scientific practices. A sample size of 12 is extraordinary small, and it is highly unlikely it would make it past an editor’s desk for peer review at a reputable journal. Casutt does not tell readers what the “positive effect” refers to. Was it reading time? Comprehension? Enjoyment?

The Conversation reached out to Bionic Reading for more clarity and to better understand its methodology. The company did not respond.

The company website’s assertion that the “brain reads faster than the eye” is also deeply flawed. Perhaps it’s a reference to sight words : When someone learns how to read, they normally have many words that they can make sense of via simple recognition, rather than by breaking down the word into individual syllables or sounds. These sight words often appear at a higher frequency in texts at all reading levels.

Either way, what makes reading “slow” is not due to an inability to quickly perceive the words themselves – which is what Bionic Reading claims to fix. Instead, reading takes the time it does due to language processing , which is where our brains turn strings of letters into words and a series of words into meaning.

So no matter how quickly you recognise certain words, your brain still has to do the work to understand the sentence.

Speed at a cost

This is not the first time someone has tried to introduce ways to read text more quickly. In fact, educators used to teach speed reading in the 1980s . However, that method faded from curriculums as research showed that faster is not always better – nor do the techniques even lead to faster reading in most cases.

Bionic Reading may even hinder readers. Consider the speed-accuracy trade-off , which theorises that the more quickly one does something, the worse their performance.

My colleagues and I tested this theory for reading comprehension across print and digital mediums. We found, time after time , whether in print or on a screen, the faster someone read a text, the less likely they were to comprehend it .

When people read quickly, they interact with the text on a more superficial level , often skipping over entire sentences or paragraphs and failing to reread important parts of the text.

Tried and true

To help struggling readers, especially those with dyslexia and ADHD, research suggests that one of the most helpful tools can be to simply encourage reading more slowly.

This is the antithesis of Bionic Reading’s argument. However, unlike Bionic Reading, the “read more slowly” school of thought has decades of research supporting it.

Other simple steps, such as following along with your finger or computer mouse , can be helpful for those with reading difficulties, too. I can understand the allure of Bionic Reading. Information bombards us. Sources of distraction are rampant. But reading proficiency scores were dropping to new lows even before the pandemic. Now is not the time to be valuing speed at the cost of comprehension.

Lauren M Singer Trakhman is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Human Development at the University of Maryland.

This article first appeared on The Conversation .

How-To Geek

What is bionic reading, and how do you use it.

What's that Bionic Reading thing everyone is talking about?

Quick Links

What is bionic reading, how to use bionic reading, should you use it.

It's no mystery that some fonts are easier to read than others. "Bionic Reading" is a tool that's more than just font, and it could improve your reading speed and comprehension. Here's what you need to know.

Let's start with the basics. Bionic Reading was created by a Swiss developer named Renato Casuut . His aim was to make reading easier by "guiding the eyes through artificial fixation points." What the heck does that mean?

In the image at the top of this page, you can see the first three letters of the word "Bionic" are in bold. The word "Reading" has the first four letters in bold. This is how all words are presented in Bionic Reading. You can see the difference compared to regular text in the image below.

The idea is your eyes focus on the bolded part of the word and your brain completes the rest. Your brain can read faster than your eyes, so by essentially reducing the number of letters your eye needs to look at, you can read faster while still retaining the full context .

It may look like a simple font, but it's actually quite a bit more than that. A font wouldn't be able to change certain parts of words. The Bionic Reading API can be used by developers to make it a text option in apps. They can adjust how many letters are bolded and the contrast with the unhighlighted letters.

Related: monthingeekfebruary201105.png

At the time of writing in May 2022, Bionic Reading is a very new tool. There are a couple of iPhone apps and a Mac app that have it built-in. You can try it right now with Reeder 5 , Lire , and Fiery Feeds .

Bionic Reading also offers a free converter tool for TXT, RTF, RTFD, EPUB, and DOCX files. That means you can convert eBooks and use Bionic Reading on your Kindle devices and other eReaders . Simply upload the file to the web converter .

After it's done converting, click the download icon.

Choose "EPUB" as the format, and then use our guide to transfer it to your Kindle eReader .

Of course, you don't only have to use this for eReaders. You can do the same thing to convert PDFs and other files that you may want to be able to read faster.

Related: How to Transfer EPUB to Kindle

All of this sounds very exciting in theory, but should you use it? You may have already answered that question with the few examples on this page. D o yo u fee l lik e yo u ca n rea d thi s senten ce  mor e  eas ily  tha n th e othe rs? If the answer is yes, maybe you should give it a try.

Some people with conditions such as ADHD or dyslexia have found that Bionic Reading improves their reading comprehension. Other people don't seem to notice a big difference compared to regular 'ol text.

At the time of writing, there's no evidence to suggest Bionic Reading is any better than regular text. However, if you find it easier to read, there's no reason not to give it a shot. More apps and devices will likely implement the feature as it continues to gain steam.

Advertisement

Can Bionic Reading Make You Read Faster?

• Share Content on Facebook
• Share Content on LinkedIn
• Share Content on Flipboard
• Share Content on Reddit
• Share Content via Email

Ever dream of having superpowers ? Maybe you'd like to be invisible or have the ability to fly. Or maybe you'd prefer to read minds or have X-ray vision and bionic powers. Any of these would be cool.

As it turns out, you do have a natural, built-in superpower. Even if you don't consider yourself a particularly fast reader, you naturally read in a way that some consider bionic.

Merriam-Webster defines bionic as "having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices." Although the idea of "bionic reading" is nothing new, the term is a recent creation for an app developed by Swiss typographic designer Renato Casutt. The app is built around the idea that our "brains read faster than our eyes," so it highlights the letters or words that our brains "see" to process the words we read (more on that in minute).

A Brief History of the Research

The science of how we read has spawned several theories , including four prominent ideas dating back to the 1800s. Three of those involve the idea of recognition, as in when we read, we either recognize shapes, individual letters or groups of letters.

While shapes are still part of our current understanding, they're no longer the primary or sole component. Later — and current research — points more toward our neural network and the power of the brain to interpret and predict what it sees.

But recognizing shapes and characters goes back to the days of hieroglyphics , petroglyphs and other ancient writing forms. Your brain recognizes the size, contours, lines and edges of letters and automatically fills in the word based on the combination of letters used.

Saccades also contribute to how we read. That's just a fancy word for eye movement. Your eyes don't just move linearly when reading; they jump back and forth. They pick a letter or word — known as a fixation point — to focus on for about 200 milliseconds, then they jump ahead several letters, skipping over conjunctions and short words like "the" all while your brain is looking forward and predicting what comes next.

Bionic Reading

So, Casutt took some of what we know about how we read and developed the Bionic Reading app, which creates "artificial fixation points" with the premise that they help guide our eyes through the text. These points theoretically allow our eyes to "skip" over words while our brains fill in the rest without losing any of the meaning of the words we're reading.

So all this begs the question: Is this type of reading really helpful? Assistant clinical professor of human development, Lauren M. Singer Trakhman, posed that very question in a piece she wrote for The Conversation. "Bionic Reading may even hinder readers," she wrote. "Consider the speed-accuracy trade-off, which theorizes that the more quickly one does something, the worse their performance." We imagine in time, science will tell.

The Bionic Reading app is free. You can try it by uploading text to the converter or try the Chrome extension .

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

What is Bionic Reading?

By: emily dexter.

Many people struggle to maintain their focus while reading. If you’re a student, this problem can get in the way of completing coursework and understanding course material. What can you do to help yourself focus while reading, so you can stay on track academically? A new way of reading might offer an answer to this question. It’s called bionic reading, and it’s created by the Swiss typographic designer Renato Casutt.

Bionic reading works by strategically bolding parts of words to make text easier to process. Here’s an example of what that looks like:

Th is i s wh at a sma ll blo ck o f te xt loo ks li ke wi th bio nic read ing. H ow d o y ou fe el whi le read ing th is? D o y ou wi sh th is who le bl og po st w as writ ten th is w ay, o r a re y ou gl ad th is parag raph i s alm ost ov er?

Let’s dive into a few commonly-asked questions about bionic reading:

1. How does bionic reading work? According to Renato Casutt’s website, bionic reading uses a special algorithm to work its magic. The algorithm identifies and bolds the “most concise parts of words” to help guide your eye over the text more quickly.

Casutt calls these bolded parts of words “fixations.” He claims that by letting your eye jump from one fixation to the next (and letting your brain fill in the rest of each word), you can read faster than you could reading normally. You can watch this short video from the World Economic Forum to better understand the process.

2. Who can benefit from bionic reading? On his website, Casutt says he has gotten feedback from dyslexic users who have understood texts more quickly with bionic reading. Millions of people have also been reacting to bionic reading on social media, and many people with dyslexia and ADHD have said bionic reading helps them focus.

In truth, more research is needed before we can guarantee that bionic reading will help anyone read texts more quickly or effectively. If you’d like to try it out for yourself and see if bionic reading helps you focus, you can access the bionic reading software online for free.

3. Will bionic reading work for me? There’s no way to know for sure if bionic reading will help you focus until you try it. As with many things, bionic reading probably isn’t for everyone — but if it can help you get through that last assignment before you run out of brain power for the night, that’s awesome!

Keep in mind that there are other resources in addition to bionic reading that can help you focus as you read. If you have dyslexia, you might consider trying out the Dyslexie typeface . Christian Boer designed the typeface in response to the specific challenges of reading with dyslexia.

You can also use text-to-speech programs if your brain can focus on audio better than written text. Indiana Wesleyan University includes ReadSpeaker as one of the tools available to students on our Student Resources and Services page.

Everyone has to figure out what works best for them as they read and study, and bionic reading is just one of many tools to add to your toolkit. If you’re ready to take the next step in your education journey and hone your study skills, check out our programs page and explore your options today.

Emily Dexter

Copywriting and marketing assistant, iwu-national and global, emily dexter is currently a senior at indiana wesleyan university, where she majors in english and writing. she is passionate about all things literary, and in her free time enjoys reading good books, attempting new art projects, and exploring the natural world., 765-613-3059, 866-498-4968.

Bionic Reading: A New Method for Reading Faster or Just Another Gimmick?

Addison Rizer

Addison Rizer is a writer and reader of anything that can be described as weird, sad, or scary. She has an MA in Professional Writing and a BA in English. She writes for Book Riot and Publishers Weekly and is always looking for more ways to gush about the books she loves. Find her published work or contact her on her website or at addisonrizer at gmaildotcom.

View All posts by Addison Rizer

I can’t be the only one who keeps hearing about Bionic Reading lately. It’s been all over my TikTok and Twitter, and even news articles have picked up on this new reading trend.

Bionic Reading promises to be a new way to read faster and comprehend deeper by a simple reformatting of your text, and with its handy dandy app or Chrome extension, you don’t even have to lift a finger to get started. But what exactly is Bionic Reading and how does it work?

What is Bionic Reading?

According to its creator, Renato Cassult , Bionic Reading is a way to combine biology and technology to make reading easier and more efficient.

The foundation of Bionic Reading is based on the idea that we only need a few letters to understand the word we’re reading. The Bionic Reading software creates “artificial fixation points” within a text by bolding the first part of each word for our eyes to jump between, “guiding the eyes” across the page and letting the brain complete the rest of the word on its own rather than having to stop and see the entirety of every word on a page. The bold parts of the word anchor your eyes and your brain fills in the rest sort of like the way we only need a first and last letter in the right place to understand a jumble of letters.

Bion ic Read ing cou ld lo ok a lit tle some thing li ke th is!

The Bionic Reading app and Google Chrome extensions allow you to vary some of the key details involved to make right for you, too. You can change how many fixation points there are in the text if it seems too cluttered for your eyes, the amount of each word that’s bolded, and the opacity of your text, along with the minutiae like font, spacing, width, and more!

How Can You Try It?

For the time being, the Bionic Reading App on the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store is free to download and test out. So is the Bionic Reading Chrome Extension . There are quite a few other extensions and apps that utilize similar software to alter text if, for whatever reason, the app and extension aren’t quite right for you!

Does it Really Help You Read, Though?

Well, TikTok seems to think so! With numerous videos getting hundreds of thousands of views and likes, the method seems to have captured the attention of readers in the BookTok community and beyond. A particular emphasis on the usefulness of the method by those with ADHD or others in the neurodivergent community claim to have found success using Bionic Reading to get through previously difficult chunks of text for work, school, or just reading for pleasure.

The scientific evidence to back it, though, is lacking. According to the Bionic Reading’s website, the method is based on the 1980 A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension by Just and Carpenter and “eye movement research” spanning back to 1905.

Bionic Reading founder Cassult conducted a small study purported to support the technology’s claims with a “positive effect” for some.

This spring I was allowed to do a small preliminary study with a Swiss University. The Swiss Institute InnoSuisse supported me and donated an amount for this preliminary study. Again, many thanks to both of them. The preliminary study consisted of 12 probands who did not know … — Bionic Reading® (@bionicreading) May 24, 2022

The results are not clear. But it can be said that the majority had a positive effect. But of course there were also probands who found the effect disturbing. It has not been explicitly tested whether it is helpful for people with dyslexia or not. — Bionic Reading® (@bionicreading) May 24, 2022

However, as many articles about the new technology point out, the sample size was only 12 people and the declared “positive effect” wasn’t elaborated on either, leaving questions about what exactly that means.

Educational psychologist Trakhman even debunked their general claim that the brain “reads faster than the eye” proposing the concept may be based on the idea of sight words, or words you memorize as a child and know by recognition rather than “by breaking down the word into individual syllables.” Trakhman also pointed out the part of reading that is the slowest isn’t perception, but processing what we’ve read. So, getting the eye moving quicker won’t necessarily increase the time it takes for our brains to process what we’ve read and understand it. She pointed to the speed-accuracy trade off which, based on a study by Wickelgren , says if you do things faster, you often do them less accurately. You don’t typically get faster reading and more comprehensive understanding in one neat new trick.

The app Readwise recently conducted a study into Bionic Reading to see what all of the social media fuss was about. In the study, they asked participants to read two 1,000-word essays, divided into Bionic and regular halves. The essays were written by the same author in the same year, and 2,074 people signed up for the study. The study found “no evidence” that Bionic Reading improved reading speed at all.

So, Should You Try It?

Well, that’s totally up to you! Just because the science isn’t certain yet doesn’t negate the people out there singing its praises. Reading is a very individualized thing, as I’m sure we all know. My Kindle settings, my reading preferences, my note taking, none of it will be the same as anyone else’s, and it’s up to me and me alone to find what works for, you guessed it, me. The same goes for you and what works best for you. If you think Bionic Reading helps you read faster or comprehend the text better, by all means, keep that extension installed.

If you’re looking for other ways to speed up your reading, check out these five tips or this guide to reading faster .

You Might Also Like

This Speedy 'Bionic Reading' Hack Has Gone Viral, But Is It Any Good?

Life Reporter

What kind of reader are you? Do your eyes race from side to side as you absorb the information on the page? Or are you a dweller who takes a while to absorb every word – and page?

Whatever your style, there’s a new hack for speed reading doing the rounds on Twitter right now. It’s called ‘bionic reading’ and it’s really dividing people.

Typography expert Renato Casutt from Switzerland has been working on the new approach, which guides readers through text using “artificial fixation points”.

By bolding or highlighting the letters at the beginning of a word, a reader’s brain can identify them with less effort and concentration. In theory, this speeds up how quickly you read as you don’t need to focus on the whole of every word.

This is because, as the Bionic Reading researchers explain, your brain actually reads faster than your eye, having stored up a dictionary of words from all the past reading you’ve ever done.

As the website puts it: “Your brain is a super computer and does a very good job at reading. Bionic Reading revises texts so that the most concise parts of words are highlighted. This guides the eye over the text and the brain remembers previously learned words more quickly.

An example has been shared on Twitter, with a regular and ‘bionic’ text side by side to demonstrate how we would normally read text and how the new technique might us.

Try reading the words below yourself.

Something super impressive I got shown today, how you can increase reading speed by playing on font weight: pic.twitter.com/ZdykiFQalx — Christophe Pasquier 🇺🇦 (@Christophepas) May 17, 2022

People are certainly impressed, with several different posts that have shared the hack going viral overnight – but many readers are also conflicted about whether the new technique is a good or bad thing.

Some welcomed the new approach. “It’s incredible how reading this feels like finally unlocking 100% of your brain”, wrote one Twitter user, who suggested someone at Twitter should “turn it on”, too.

But others worried that speed reading in this way was “robotic”, would take the joy out of reading, and might stop you from retaining any of the information.

One even called it a “sickening technoperversion”.

𝙄𝘧 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝙖𝘵 𝙏𝙬𝙞𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝘭𝘥 𝙩𝙪𝘳𝘯 𝙤𝘯 𝘽𝙞𝙤𝘯𝘪𝘤 𝙍𝙚𝙖𝙙𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝙢𝙤𝘥𝘦 𝙩𝙝𝘢𝘵 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝘭𝘥 𝙗𝘦 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 — juan (@juanbuis) May 19, 2022

i hate that this kinda works but i read like a robot https://t.co/XAdoy5pAae — 🐯 🏴 (@mochibimoon) May 20, 2022

This is an abomination, a sickening technoperversion of the human experience of reading with leisure and thoughtfulness, turning it into another soulless act of efficiency and speed, and calling this "progress" You'd finish a book if your mind wasnt so damnably broken. — Alexander Cortes PhD, Fitness, Nutrition, Fat loss (@AJA_Cortes) May 18, 2022

Some Twitter users said it could help those with cognitive issues, such as dyslexia or ADHD, while others suggested it would do the opposite and make it more difficult, as they may likely already substitute a “close enough” word, which could change the whole context of what was being read.

“Not sure if this helps me, but I don’t think it hinders me, and I wouldn’t mind reading text augmented this way. And if it helps some people a lot, it’s worth implementing as an option, especially since it’s so simple,” another wrote.

I have adhd and dyslexia. I found this easier to follow and comprehend. It’s ok if it’s not for you, but relax with the high horsery. — 🇺🇸 (@youdumbass____) May 18, 2022

If you look at this thread you’ll see a lot of folks with cognitive issues discussing why it helps. For me, my brain wants to process the entire page at once. The bionic text makes it easier to follow in a linear way. — Little Mx. Scare-All (@CryptTrash) May 19, 2022

I would be surprised if this helps reading accuracy for people with dyslexia, since their brains are already more likely to substitute a 'close enough' word when they encounter a word they either don't recognise or struggle to decode. but I am open to hearing more testimomy — mark 🪞 (@total_exit) May 19, 2022

If you’re worried about this font form taking over all your reading material, don’t fret, it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.

“Bionic reading” is still in the early stages of development and is something you can access via a paid app .

So unless you really really want it, you can carry on reading as normal.

Slowly does it.

Effectiveness of Bionic Reading: Seductive Hype or Realistic Hope? 5 key questions Answered

This article discusses the effectiveness of Bionic Reading through the exploration of 5 key questions that language educators should take note before adopting the method. Read on to find out more.

• What is BIONIC READING? How does it boost reading comprehension?

Question 1: Where is the rigourous empirical evidence for such an astounding claim?

Question 2: what are the alternative claims and what are their evidence, question 3: how do the proponents respond to opposing claims, question 4: how is this in line or at misalignment with previous research findings in the science of reading, question 5: can we implement bionic reading in our language classrooms, is bionic reading effective as claimed what can we learn from this.

In the age of information overload, the idea of being able to read in a focused mode at higher speeds without sacrificing understanding has undeniable appeal. One method that has generated buzz and became viral in 2022 was “ BIONIC READING ”. Nearing a year ahead, there are still proponents of this method posting about the impressive outcomes they seem to have obtained through using the app on social media.

But does BIONIC READING actually work, or is it just another gimmick? That’s the million-dollar question that we are still grappling with. On the one hand, the prospect of being able to read at lightning speed without sacrificing comprehension is undoubtably attractive. On the other hand, there are some sceptics who worry that BIONIC READING may be little more than a gimmick, with little real-world value.

In this article, I will try to answer this question. Though, as a spoiler alert, I do not have a definite answer. However, an analysis of the evidence and arguments currently available will be undertaken using 5 key questions, and this process can be revisited if more information becomes available. Additionally, this structure can be used to evaluate any purported revolutionary techniques that are exciting and promising on one hand, but seem too good to be true on the other.

What is BIONIC READING ? How does it boost reading comprehension?

Let’s start by defining “ BIONIC READING ” exactly is. As clarified on the official website , it is a technique by which the typography of a text is modified to guide the eyes through the text “with artificial fixation points”. The assumption behind the method is also articulated: “We humans store learned words and so just a few letters are enough to recognise whole words”.

Based on this assumption, the technique modifies the typeface of the initial letters of a word that can apparently send signals to the brain to fill in the whole word (e.g. from Bionic Reading to Bio nic Read ing). In other words, what is been suggested is that the brain becomes more efficient in word processing because we need not complete the identification of every letter in the word before registering it as part of encoding.

BIONIC READING is designed to be flexible. There are different degrees of “fixation”, “saccade” and “opacity” which a reader can toggle to find the optimal combination for more efficient reading comprehension.

Despite the modification to make one read faster presumably with stronger focus, BIONIC READING has been declared to be aimed at promoting “a more in-depth reading and understanding of written content” in the context of “a digital world dominated by shallow forms of reading”. It is not clear what such “shallow forms of reading” refer to, though my baseless interpretation is that they refer to other speed reading methods.

Get real-time updates and  BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS  by joining our online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.

So, how does the creator of the BIONIC READING method, Renato Casutt , come to create this method and where is the evidence to claim its effectiveness?

According to two articles I found – one published on The Conversation and another published on Quartz , the official website of BIONIC READING did publish the claim by Renato Casutt that the method was independently tested on 12 participants. A positive effect was found, though not described, for most participants. The Conversation wrote that they did reach out to the company for clarification on the methodology of the study – an attempt that was futile as there was no reply.

Today, I cannot locate any remnant of this study on the website. What remains though, are the many individual testimonials on the website. They have also invited individual users to continue coming forward with their personal experiences in using the product, though I doubt they will publish the negative reviews.

BIONIC READING has also considerable support and a large number of positive reviews on social media. Personally, I also came to know of this “method” after encountering a shared post by one of the language educators in a LinkedIN group. Many users open to the method claim to be having Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia. At face value, we can assume that the method could have worked for some though these claims are unverifiable since they are not properly documented or understood.

Nevertheless, similar to Dr Trakhman (the professor who wrote the piece on The Conversation), I share the concern on the validity of these claims. I will not discredit the potential that it might have in living up to its claim – just that there is no rigorous evidence suggesting that.

This is reminiscent of another claim of a ground-breaking typeface design that can help dyslexics read – the Dyslexic Font or OpenDyslexic. This font was designed as a graduate project by the creator, Christian Boer , who has dyslexia himself. The project was claimed to have “find a solution to improve the readability for people with dyslexia”. This was further covered in articles later, such as the BBC-published article “ The typeface that helps dyslexics read ”.

However, this claim has been contested later on by a number of studies . There is little support from research published in peer-reviewed journals that “these special fonts help kids or adults with dyslexia to read faster or make fewer mistakes”. It is still early and we should either proceed with an attached agenda of a rigorous action research to examine its effects or wait for further findings before adopting it on a larger scale.

Notwithstanding such, has there been rigorous research conducted by others who claimed the method as ineffective, or at least not as effective as claimed? To be fair, the sceptics of the BIONIC READING method are also in large numbers. When it received an outpour of support on social media, it was also balanced with many others who have either dismissed the positive effects of the method, or claimed that the method is counter-productive (e.g. slows down reading speed). That was how it went viral.

The main advantage, however, in the opposing camp is that there is at least one rigorous study that as conducted. Readwise.io conducted this study which went out to test the effectiveness of BIONIC READING . The findings of this study , including the methodology,  are published for all to review and see. The raw data of the study has also been made publicly accessible for analysts who wish to run the data analysis by constructing your own statistical models.

In a nutshell, no evidence was found that BIONIC READING has any positive effect on reading speed – no significant impact that it affects reading speed (at least it does not slow down reading as some critics claim too). In fact, to be extremely precise, “participants read 2.6 words per minute slower on average with BIONIC READING than without” though the effect size is so small that this can be considered negligible.

Till date, I have not yet found any other academic empirical study which make a thorough assessment of the method – or at least something similar to this study on Readwise.io. While we can fairly question Readwise’s motivations in conducting the study and publishing it after the findings invalidated the method, it is at least presented in an open and articulate manner – critics can come and examine the study and data otherwise. As such, the strength of evidence is currently in favour of opponents to the method hitherto.

In the same article published on Quartz , Renato Casutt did respond to the study conducted by Readwise.io. He remained unfazed by those who doubt him, for he believes that recognition on social media is enough. In his own words as cited: “I don’t think BIONIC READING would have gone viral if it didn’t make a positive impact for readers. Millions of people, including me, think BIONIC READING works.” Note that the notion of “millions of people” came in the context of “over 7 million views on TikTok [on] just one post” and “liked and shared millions of times on Twitter”.

Is Renato Casutt planning for a study at his end to validate the claims on social media? Apparently, he did, according to the Quartz article, though we have yet to find any published findings or that whether the study was really implemented. Renato Casutt did mention the existence of a large number of studies on the Science of Reading which seems to suggest that the evidence for this approach can be found there.

Before we move on to the discussion on theoretical grounds, I confess that I found this response unsatisfying though I can understand Renato Casutt’s motivation. BIONIC READING is already in the market, and seems to have garnered enough attention and affirmation. For a business, that is sufficient as long as the market continues to demand the product/service and is willing to pay for it.

On a side note, I just want to highlight the notion of “ confirmation bias ”, which is the tendency for people to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. Confirmation bias can impair our ability to think critically and objectively, especially in updating our beliefs based on new evidence since we tend to disregard those that invalidate our current ones. The challenging part about confirmation bias is that it can exist in the implicit realm, such that we are not aware of it in activity.

Whether or not we are an open-minded innovator or a critical consumer, we do need to be mindful of the ways confirmation bias may catch up with us – especially in the face of innovations that gain viral attention. With BIONIC READING , noting that rigorous empirical evidence is not in its favour, we should still remain cognisant of the other positive reviews it received and not discount it completely yet. Let’s bring it to an assessment with other findings from the Science of Reading .

Dr Trakhman has explicated much of this in her article on the Conversation. The main proposition put forward by the BIONIC READING method is that the modification of the typeface of initial letters of a word (by bolding given the examples) has the effect of expediting word recognition. The difficulties though, are the constraints of this method.

Must the reader already be a skilled language user before this method can be used, since the reader must already have the “stored words”? Can this be used on early readers who are still developing their reading expertise? To further extend, can this be used on developing early readers who have been found to have ADHD or dyslexia? What are the long-term effects of using this method on reading in general? Will reading of general text be made more difficult since the method cannot be applied on existing prints?

Frankly, I do not have comprehensive answers to all these questions, though I can attempt to address some related concerns. First and foremost, typeface modification is not a method unique to BIONIC READING . I have earlier shared on the well-intended innovation of the dyslexic font which turned out to be ineffective. In an alternative world, typeface modification has also been a highly adopted and researched method in input enhancement , particularly known as textual enhancement or perceptual enhancement.

Specifically, perceptual enhancement makes use of phonological and typographical cues in attempt to shift attention to the targeted forms. Manipulation examples include bolding, using italics, underlining, highlighting, changing the font size or style, or any combination of these for written texts; or varying intonation, stress and loudness for speech/utterances. It is hoped that the enhanced perceptual cues can draw learners’ attention to the linguistic forms underpinning the manipulated words (or strings of words) by increasing their salience.

Based on this understanding, typeface modification can theoretically be used to bring salience to selected sentences/phrases/words thus improving the chance of “Noticing” – an important pre-requisite for language acquisition according to research. Note that this is not a fool proof technique as research on such techniques have found effects to be mixed. However, typeface modification for every word in the case of BIONIC READING will thus diminish the effect of perceptual enhancement typically used to help language acquisition. Fundamentally this also means that perceptual enhancement as a technique will not be possible when the BIONIC READING method is engaged.

Assuming that typeface modification is not applied systematically for input enhancement, can typeface modification of initial letters in BIONIC READING then allow one to process the word faster? This needs a revisitation of the processes involved in reading. There is no doubt that reading is primarily an activity that relates to vision. The words need to be seen and captured by the eyes before any reading can start.

The intervention implemented in BIONIC READING is targeted at the manipulation of vision. The “artificial fixation points” force one to start the processing of words there. Note that this manipulation does not delete the subsequent letters completely – Bionic Reading to Bio nic Read ing, and not Bionic Reading to Bio     Read . This implies that BIONIC READING is not trying to suggest that we only process the initial letters to know the words – it does not make sense since other permutations can exist (e.g. Bio logical Read ers, Bio chemical Read iness).

What does this suggest? Within BIONIC READING , the reader is still processing the whole word. This is not too different from other methods, albeit not proposed as reading enhancement techniques, that have tried to demonstrate a prime feature of reading (specifically word recognition) – visual invariance ( Dehaene, 2009 ).  

One particular hallmark of development in reading expertise is the ability to mainfest invariance in word recognition when the character shapes are changed (font type, font case, font weight). W e cA n amaz I ngLY pRoCeSs WoRdS in a s e n t e n c e des pite a chao tic c o m b i na ti on oF tHESE VARIANTS . Handwritten manuscripts can lead to additional levels of variability and uncertainty, but skilled readers can deal with them nonetheless. Reading scientists basically find that “our letter normalisation processes are so efficient that they easily resist such transformation”. As such, it is really interestingly unknown why BIONIC READING can work in expediting reading speed, since it will probably get “normalised” over time.

In addition, the claim that “just a few letters are enough to recognise whole words” is also baffling. I have demonstrated earlier that we cannot omit the letters of a word after the initial letters (e.g. Bio logical Read ers, Bio chemical Read iness), so it is mysterious how this claim can be substantiated. On the contrary, reading scientists have found that our visual system processes all letters of a word at the same time, rather than sequentially, on the condition that we have become proficient readers. For developing readers (e.g. children), they still take time to process the individual letters.

In other words, skilled adult readers do not “fill in the whole word” after seeing the initial letters – they are just simply efficient in processing all the letters of a word or even words simultaneously. If we are already familiar with the 2 pathways to reading comprehension – the phonologically mediated pathway and the direct semantic pathway, the skilled adult reader utilises more of the direct semantic pathway after many years of using more of the phonologically mediated pathway. As for the developing readers, they still need to use the phonologically mediated pathway, and will need to process every letter nevertheless.

Perhaps one of the most bewildering claims is the proposition that Bionic Reading is aimed at promoting “a more in-depth reading and understanding of written content” since it is also marketed to speed up reading. Reading scientists generally converge on the understanding that “speed” and “comprehension” do not go hand in hand in reading. In fact, to promote deeper engagement of details, some experts advocate “ slow reading ”.

Join our mailing list!

Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!

Reviewing the whole article hitherto, you might be wondering that the answer is a definite “no”. At least for now, with the lack of further evidence, we may want to be a bit more mindful if we do want to try it out.

For developing readers, especially for younger learners, I will be more inclined to say “no”. Given the space, if the readers can do it, they should develop all the necessary expertise required in reading (e.g. encoding capabilities and language comprehension skills). Furthermore, authentic texts out there may not necessarily be presented in such forms and the readers will still need to be accustomed to those forms.

For skilled and expert readers, if you are keen in experimenting different ways of presentation, you can still consider how to factor in BIONIC READING as one of the many approaches to test out the different effects based on different means of input enhancement. Notwithstanding such, you may want to keep good documentation or incorporate it as part an action research project. At a skilled level, the key goal in reading instruction will probably be geared towards increasing their willingness in cultivating a habit of personal voluntary reading. If BIONIC READING can potentially reap some effects in that area, it is worth a try (though we need to be cautious that it may just be a novelty effect).

For ADHD and dyslexic readers, we may want to heed Dr Trakhman’s advice: “To help struggling readers, especially those with dyslexia and ADHD, research suggests that one of the most helpful tools can be to simply encourage reading more slowly.” Slow reading has decades of research supporting it and is more assuring than the unverified BIONIC READING .  Other easy actions, such as following along with your finger or computer mouse, might even be more beneficial.

Notwithstanding such, if you do want to offer an alternative for adults, you can still introduce it to them to try out as part of their personal voluntary reading. Again, it may reap benefits in unknown ways – and you can sure be an innovator researching that.

For now, the verdict is not in the favour of BIONIC READING if we are talking about science-based evidence. Potentially, as an approach to perceptual modification, it can be studied alongside all other variations to assess their impact on reading for language acquisition. In reading as an expertise, the prime feature of visual invariance suggests that we may be looking for a treasure which is not there.

The overwhelming eagerness in the adoption of BIONIC READING and any other speed-reading techniques is a testament of our performance anxiety in wanting to acquire more information in shorter periods of time. That is definitely a win for reading as a pursuit, but not necessarily useful for in-depth understanding. However, in adopting any new methods, we should always be mindful of the questions asked in this article to examine the new method(s) while calibrating the degree of our adoption.

Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.

Balan, V.R. (2022). Is Bionic Reading a fad or can it help people with ADHD, Dyslexia read better? . Happiest Health .

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention . New York USA: Viking (Penguin Group).

Dexter, E. (Unknown). What is Bionic Reading? . Indiana Wesleyan University .

Doyon, D. (2022a). Does Bionic Reading actually work? Test for yourself! . Readwise .

Doyon, D. (2022b). Does Bionic Reading actually work? We timed over 2,000 readers and the results might surprise you . Readwise .

Ehri, L.C. (2014). Orthographic Mapping in the Acquisition of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning . Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 (1), 5-21.

Ehri, L.C. (2015). How Children Learn to Read Words. In Pollatsek, A., & Treiman, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 293 – 310). New York USA: Oxford University Press.

Fedewa, J. (2022). What Is Bionic Reading, and How Do You Use It? . Howtogeek .

Gray, S. (2017). The typeface that helps dyslexics read . BBC .

Heyman, N. (2022). Bionic Reading – I wish it was that simple .

Hjetland, H.N., Brinchmann, E.I., Scherer, R., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2020). Preschool pathways to reading comprehension: A systematic meta-analytic review . Educational Research Review , 30 .

Joo, S.J., Tavabi, K., Caffarra, S., & Yeatman, J.D. (2021). Automaticity in the reading circuitry . Brain & Language , 214.

Kuster, S.M., Van Weerdenburg, M., Gompel, M., & Bosman, A.M.T. (2018). Dyslexie font does not benefit reading in children with or without dyslexia . Annals of Dyslexia ,68, 25-42.

Lavelle, D. (2022). Bionic reading: could an ADHD-friendly hack turn me into a speed-reader? . The Guardian .

Quito, A. (2022). Can adjusting font styles really help us read faster? . Quartz .

Rayner, K., Schotter, E.R., Masson, M.E.J., Potter, M.C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So Much to Read, So Little Time: How Do We Read, and Can Speed Reading Help? . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 17 (1), 4-34.

Reneau, A. (2022). People are raving about how much easier it is to read with ‘bionic reading’ font . Upworthy .

Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t and What can be Done about It . New York USA: Basic Books.

Taylor, J. (2022). Neuroscience of Reading Development. In Ibanez, A., Anderson, M., Lee, T.M.C., & Sala, S.D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Behavioural Neuroscience (Second Edition) Volume 3 (pp. 369-377). Amsterdam Netherlands: Elsevier.

Terada, Y. (2022). Do Dyslexia Fonts Actually Work? . Edutopia .

Trakhman, L.M.S. (2022). Can Bionic Reading make you a speed reader? Not so fast . The Conversation .

Willingham, D.T. (2017). The Reading Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding How the Mind Reads . San Francisco USA: JosseyBass.

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain . New York USA: Harper.

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World . New York USA: Harper.

Yap, M.J., & Balota, D.A. (2015). Visual Word Recognition. In Pollatsek, A., & Treiman, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 26 – 43). New York USA: Oxford University Press.

Total Transparency :  My top priority has always and will remain as providing quality content for language educators through this website. To make this sustainable, I use links and run ads to affiliate websites. If you click through and make a purchase, you will get a product/service at no additional cost to you and I will receive a commission. That is tremendous support for the mission of this website and I sincerely thank you for that. I only make recommendations for products/services I have found to be useful. For more information, read my full affiliate disclosure here .

STUDY OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide (4 Major Sub-fields)

Debate on quantity and quality of language input: which is more important (9 critical insights backed by research), the powerful hidden forces: 13 factors affecting language attrition disclosed by research, the language input blueprint: managing 9 key language input characteristics for accelerated language learning (bonus – expert tips included), unveiling the classics: a complete guide in revisiting 25 canonical language teaching approaches and methods (with hidden modern twists on contemporary language pedagogy), 7 types of language input that can facilitate language acquisition according to research, why naturalistic language input (5 advantages for language acquisition), lea newsletter mar 2024, richness of the malay language: 7 captivating facts revealed about bahasa melayu, lea newsletter feb 2024, lea newsletter jan 2024.

Legal Pages

Receive insights and  EXCLUSIVE  resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!

• Environment
• Road to Net Zero
• Art & Design
• Film & TV
• Music & On-stage
• Pop Culture
• Fashion & Beauty
• Home & Garden
• Things to do
• Combat Sports
• Horse Racing
• Beyond the Headlines
• Trending Middle East
• Business Extra
• Culture Bites
• Year of Elections
• Pocketful of Dirhams
• Books of My Life
• Iraq: 20 Years On

Is 'bionic reading' a brain hack that can help you read faster?

The technology highlights the first letters of each word in bold, but not all experts are convinced that there are benefits.

The unique reading technique could help literature lovers get through even more novels. Photo: EPA

Imagine being able to read a novel or a non-fiction book at, say, one-and-a-half times the normal reading speed.

So, instead of an average-length novel taking more than five hours to read — assuming a reading speed of around 250 words per minute and a novel of 80,000 words — it could be polished off in a little over three-and-a-half hours.

While the idea of speed reading has been around since at least 1925, when a course on the subject was taught at a university in New York, in today’s world people who want to read faster may look to technology to help.

One app in particular, Bionic Reading, has been generating headlines.

The app, which reportedly has users across the world, creates what its owners call "artificial fixation points" that guide the reader through the text.

The first few letters of each word are highlighted in bold, allowing the brain to complete each word and facilitating, the app states, "a more in-depth reading and understanding of written content".

The app’s webpage lists people who could benefit from such a reading technique as, among others, someone with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and others who have little free time.

Among those who have welcomed its arrival is Dr Dean Burnett, an honorary research associate at Cardiff University’s School of Psychology in the UK, and author of books including The Idiot Brain and The Happy Brain .

He finds material written in bionic text "a bit easier to read" and describes it as a "brain hack" that exploits the way our visual systems work.

New tech can be useful

"It’s all about eye movements," he said. "Brain power is incredibly demanding for the body, so anything which helps it skip a step or limits the amount of information it has to work with, is usually quite effective.

"I think bionic text does that. It does give your visual system anchors to focus on, so I can certainly see how it might be a more efficient way to read, a more palatable way to read, for people who have sensory issues or are neurodivergent, like ADHD, and the brain has to work hard anyway to keep focus."

A concern that has frequently been raised is that there is little data to support the suggestion that bionic reading enables people to read more easily or faster. One study tested more than 2,000 readers and actually found a very slight decrease in reading speed.

With speed reading in its non-bionic form having been practised for many decades at least, it comes as no surprise that there have been some high-profile adherents over the years, among them the late US president John F Kennedy, who was said to have been able to read at 1,200 words per minute (wpm).

One of his successors, Jimmy Carter, was also a fan. A course Mr Carter took during his time in the White House helped him to "greatly improve my speed reading and comprehension", the former president said in 2012.

Rapid reading

Few people take a closer interest in speed reading than Peter Roesler, author of the book Principles of Speed Reading and chair of the German Society for Speed Reading.

With a number of weeks of training, he said a person who reads at 250 wpm may be able to increase their speed by about 150. Described as basic speed reading, this is achievable by about 90 per cent of readers, he said.

Beyond this, there have been wild claims by others of reading speeds of as much as 15,000 wpm or even higher, although Mr Roesler said these were likely to be impossible because this much information cannot be transported by the visual system to the brain.

"Reading researchers usually say speed reading does not work, and it’s true for most of the claims, but there’s good scientific evidence for the smaller claims that it works," he said.

"It takes a long time to improve the relevant brain areas and in the lower rates it is mainly the inner voice which is the limiting factor."

If this "inner voice" is no longer active, Mr Roesler said that reading speeds of up to 900 wpm could be achieved through visual line reading, in which the person understands what has been read without the need for certain brain areas to be activated. Other techniques can, he said, achieve speeds of up to 1,500 wpm.

Whether bionic reading should be considered a valuable way of improving reading speed, appears uncertain, however.

Better to take it slow

Certainly some researchers think that it brings no benefits. Dr Lauren Trakhman, an assistant clinical professor in the Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology at the University of Maryland in the US, suggested it was not helpful for any reader and could even prove harmful to the reading of people with ADHD or related difficulties.

"One of the most helpful tools for readers with ADHD is to read more slowly, which is the antithesis of bionic reading’s entire argument," she said.

Another academic, Dr Mary Dyson, a senior visiting research fellow in the Department of Typography and Graphic Communication at the University of Reading in the UK, said that the way that bionic reading highlighted certain letters may not take proper account of eye movements in reading.

In a normal reading environment, she said the initial saccade (movement of the eye between fixation points) tended to place the eyes just left of the centre of the word.

She also said that no account was taken of the varying difficulty of words, which affects how long the eyes fixate words, and which words a person might skip.

Dr Dyson thought it unlikely that the app would increase reading speed and, if it did, she predicted a reduction in comprehension.

Concerns about a loss of comprehension are common with speed reading, creating what may be described as the speed-accuracy trade off.

Research Dr Trakhman and her colleagues has carried out indicates that the only time where reading more quickly is equal to reading at a normal speed is when a person is trying to get just the main idea or gist of something.

"So, bionic reading would be a fine use if, say, you needed the news headlines quickly before entering a dinner party where you wanted to sound aware of what was going on in the world," she said.

"For anything more than comprehension on a superficial level, it shouldn’t be used."

While speed reading, whether bionic or otherwise, may be valuable in certain situations, such as when trying to take in the salient points from a lengthy text, it is probably best put aside when, say, tackling a novel.

"If you’re trying to read a novel for pleasure, you won’t get what you need from it," Dr Burnett said. "The whole point of the novel is that you’re immersed in that world.

"You’re taking in the story, the nuance, the subtlety, and speed reading will prevent your ability to do that because the information is too much for your brain to take in and work through."

The UAE Today

The latest news and analysis from the Emirates

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Bionic reading: could an ADHD-friendly hack turn me into a speed-reader?

This typographical trick certainly helps me focus. But maybe having a wandering mind isn’t such a bad thing

W ith ADHD, thoughts and impulses intrude on my focus like burglars trying to break into a house. Sometimes these crooks carefully pick the backdoor lock before they silently enter and pilfer all the silverware. At other times, stealth goes out of the window; they’re kicking through the front door and taking whatever they like.

Either way, I was supposed to be reading a book just now, but all I can think about is how great it would be if I waded into a river to save a litter of kittens from tumbling down a waterfall just in the nick of time. I’ve got the kittens in my hand, and the crowd has gone wild; the spectres of Gandhi, Churchill and Obi-Wan Kenobi hover over the riverbank, nodding their approval while fireworks crackle overhead … I snap back and realise I’ve read three pages, only I don’t remember a single line.

I reread the same pages, but the same thing happens, only now I’m so hung up on concentrating that another fantasy has hijacked my attention. This time I’m imagining that I’m super-focused, so focused that Manchester United have called and told me they want me to be their special penalty taker. These Walter Mitty, borderline narcissistic episodes persist for a while until I give up and go and be distracted somewhere else.

Unfortunately, I don’t take Ritalin, a stimulant prescribed to daydreamers like me, so when it comes to focusing I need all the help I can get. Enter Swiss developer and typographic designer Renato Casutt, who has spent six years trying to develop a typographical trick that helps people read more quickly and efficiently. “Bionic reading” is a font people can use on their devices via apps for iPhone and other Apple products. It works by highlighting a limited number of letters in a word in bold, and allowing your brain – or, more specifically, your memory – to fill in the rest.

It looks like this : I s thi s senten ce clear er no w yo u ’r e readi ng i t i n bion ic, o r ar e yo u jus t a s confus ed a s thr ee sentenc es ag o?

Around half of bionic text on a page is bold, and Casutt claims that this gives readers “an advantage, facilitates fast learning and knowledge expansion, and provides a tool to read with less noise, more focus and fewer distractions”. Some people have reported that it unlocked “ 100% of my brain ”, and that it has helped their dyslexia. Brilliant! This is music to my distracted ears, so I give it a go.

I’m not a scientist, and I am short of a test group, never mind a control group, so I figure that all I can do is read the same text twice and see which version reads better. Of course, if I’ve already read the first text in normal font, before I read in bionic then it’s obvious that the second go will be easier, and the same problem arises if read vice versa. So I decide that mixing up paragraphs in bionic and a regular font from the same text would be a fairer test.

I don’t know if it’s because I’m trying especially hard, but the bionic font is startlingly good. It’s less like reading and more like being punched in the face with letters, letters that jar my brain to fill in the partially formed words into fully formed ones. I’m finding I’m processing text more quickly and retaining more information. Still, bionic is not the most enjoyable reading experience. It’s like having your favourite album played to you in spliced chunks – making everything sound like Pink Floyd.

Casutt says he has overseen a study involving 12 readers who were asked to read a text in bionic and ordinary text like what you’re reading now. Casutt concedes that the results from his tests are not clear but claims most subjects reported that bionic had a positive effect on reading (whereas a minority reported feeling “disturbed”).

In a way, some novels are already made for the ADHD brain. Books should encourage a wandering mind. Inspire rumination. Prose like Margaret Atwood’s fizzes and pops, but there are other moments where it lilts and glides; you put it down, and reflect and grow. Readers would miss that if they read through the bionic lens, where everything becomes supercharged as if the writer was scribbling during a massive speed binge. Still, it would improve Wuthering Heights.

And bionic reading could have benefited me at school on the occasions when my art and design teacher made me read a textbook detailing the many, many shades of colour on the graphite pencil scale. Maybe I wouldn’t have torn pages from it and sent rude messages to classmates via paper plane … On second thoughts, I almost certainly would have.

Daniel Lavelle writes on mental health, homelessness and social care

• Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
• Neuroscience

Most viewed

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built upon the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. Our goals in this paper are to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, we summarize those things that we believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. We conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that we believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all children in the 21st century.

For more than 100 years, the question of how best to teach children to read has been debated in what has been termed the “reading wars”. The debate cyclically fades into the background only to reemerge, often with the same points of conflict. We believe that this cycle is not helpful for promoting the best outcomes for children’s educational success. Our goal in this paper is to make an honest and critical appraisal of the science of reading, defining what it is, how we build a case for evidence, summarizing those things for which the science of reading has provided unequivocal answers, providing a discussion of things we do not know but that may have been “oversold,” identifying areas for which evidence is promising but not yet compelling, and thinking ahead about how the science of reading can better serve all stakeholders in children’s educational achievements.

At its core, scientific inquiry is the same in all fields. Scientific research, whether in education, physics, anthropology, molecular biology, or economics, is a continual process of rigorous reasoning supported by a dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings. It builds understandings in the form of models or theories that can be tested. Advances in scientific knowledge are achieved by the self-regulating norms of the scientific community over time, not, as sometimes believed, by the mechanistic application of a particular scientific method to a static set of questions (National Research Council, 2002, p. 2).

What is the Science of Reading and Why are we Still Debating it?

The “science of reading” is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method. We recognize that the accrual of scientific knowledge related to reading is ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy. Nonetheless, the knowledge base on the science of reading is vast. In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer-reviewed articles have been published in journals that included the keyword “reading” based on a PsycINFO search. Although many of these studies likely focused on a sliver of the reading process individually, collectively, research studies with a focus on reading have yielded a substantial knowledge base of stable findings based on the science of reading. Taken together, the science of reading helps a diverse set of educational shareholders across institutions (e.g., preschools, schools, universities), communities, and families to make informed choices about how to effectively promote literacy skills that foster healthy and productive lives ( DeWalt & Hink, 2009 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

An interesting question concerning the science of reading is “Why is there a debate surrounding the science of reading?” Although there are certainly disputes within the scientific community regarding best practices and new areas of research inquiry, most of the current debate seems to settle upon what constitutes scientific evidence, how much value we should place on scientific evidence as opposed to other forms of knowledge, and how preservice teachers should be instructed to teach reading ( Brady, 2020 ). The current disagreement in what constitutes the scientific evidence of reading (e.g., Calkins, 2020 ) is not new. During the last round of the “reading wars” in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s these same issues were discussed and debated. Much of the debate focused on conflicting views in epistemology between constructivists and positivists on the basic mechanisms associated with reading development. Constructivists, such as Goodman (1967) and Smith (1971) , believed that reading was a “natural act” akin to learning language and thus emphasized giving children the opportunity to discover meaning through experiences in a literacy-rich environment. In contrast, positivists, such as Chall (1967) and Flesch (1955) , made strong distinctions between innate language learning and the effortful learning required to acquire reading skills. Positivists argued for explicit instruction to help foster understanding of how the written code mapped onto language, whereas constructivists encouraged children to engage in a “psycholinguistic guessing game” in which readers use their graphic, semantic, and syntactic knowledge (known as the three cuing system) to guess the meaning of a printed word.

Research clearly indicates that skilled reading involves the consolidation of orthographic and phonological word forms ( Dehene, 2011 ). Work in cognitive neuroscience indicates that a small region of the left ventral visual cortex becomes specialized for this purpose. As children learn to read, they recruit neurons from a small region of the left ventral visual cortex within the left occipitotemporal cortex region (i.e., visual word form area) that are tuned to language-dependent parameters through connectivity to perisylvian language areas ( Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2018 ). This provides an efficient circuit for grapheme-phoneme conversion and lexical access allowing efficient word-reading skills to develop. These studies provide direct evidence for how teaching alters the human brain by repurposing some visual regions toward the shapes of letters, suggesting that cultural inventions, such as written language, modify evolutionarily older brain regions. Furthermore, studies suggest that instruction focusing on the link between orthography and phonology promote this brain reorganization (e.g., Dehaene, 2011 ). Yet, arguments between philosophical constructivists and philosophical positivists on what constitutes the science of reading and how it informs instruction remain active today (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ). In a recent interview with Emily Hanford, Ken Goodman defended his advocacy for the three cuing system saying that the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their lab and later he stated that “my science is different” ( Hanford, 2019 ).

As scientists at the Florida Center for Reading Research, we are often frustrated when what we view to be the empirically supported evidence base about the reading process are distorted or denied in communications directed to the public and to teachers. However, Stanovich (2003) posited that “in many cases, the facts are secondary—what is being denied are the styles of reasoning that gave rise to the facts; what is being denied is closer to a worldview than an empirical finding. Many of these styles are implicit; we are not conscious of them as explicit rules of behavior” (pp. 106-107). Stanovich proposed five different dimensions that represent “styles” of generating knowledge about reading. For our purposes, here, we focus on the first dimension: the correspondence versus coherence theory of truth. It hits at the heart of how people believe something to be true. People who believe that a real world exists independent of their beliefs, and that interrogating this world using rigorous principles to gain knowledge is a fruitful activity are said to subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. In contrast, those who subscribe to the coherence theory of truth believe that something is “true” if the beliefs about something fit together in a logical way. In essence, something is true if it makes sense.

Stanovich believed these differing truth systems might lie at the heart of the disagreements surrounding the science of reading. One side shouting, “Look at this mountain of evidence! How can you not believe it?” and the other side shouting, “It doesn’t make sense! It doesn’t match up with our experiences! Why should we value your knowledge above our own?!” By approaching the science of reading from the perspective of the correspondence theory of truth, we consider how compelling evidence can be generated, what we believe is the compelling evidence, what we think lacks evidence, and what we think is promising evidence.

How We Build a Case for Compelling Evidence

Research is the means by which we acquire and understand knowledge about the world ( Dane, 1990 ) to create scientific principles. Relatively few scientists would argue with the importance of using research evidence to support a principle or to make claims about reading development and the quality of reading instruction. Where significant divergence often occurs is in response to policy statements that categorize research claims and instructional strategies into those with greater or lesser levels of evidence. This divergence is typically rooted in applied epistemology, which can be understood as the study of whether the means by which we study evidence are themselves well designed to lead to valid conclusions. Researchers often frame the science of reading from divergent applied epistemological perspectives. Thus, two scientists who approach the science of reading with different epistemologies will both suggest that they have principled understandings and explanations for how children learn to read; yet, the means by which those understandings and explanations were derived are often distinct.

The correspondence and coherence theories of truth described above are examples of explanations from contrasting epistemological perspectives. Consistent with these perspectives, researchers approaching the science of reading using a correspondence theory typically prioritize deductive methods, which embed hypothesis testing, precise operationalization of constructs, and efforts to decouple the researchers’ beliefs from their interpretation and generalization of empirical evidence. Researchers approaching the science of reading using a coherence theory of truth typically prioritize more inductive methods, such as phenomenological, ethnographic, and grounded theory approaches that embed focus on the meaning and understanding that comes through a person’s lived experience and where the scientist’s own observations shape meaning and principles (e.g., Israel & Duffy, 2014 ).

When the National Research Council published Scientific Research in Education (2002), a significant amount of criticism levied against the report boiled down to differences in epistemological perspectives. Yet, these genuine contrasts can often obscure contributions to the science of reading that derive from multiple applied epistemologies. Observational research, using both inductive (e.g., case studies) and deductive (e.g., correlational studies) approaches, substantively informs the development of theories and of novel instructional approaches (e.g., Scruggs et al., 2007 ). Public health research offers a useful parallel. As it would be unethical to establish a causal link from smoking cigarettes to lung cancer through a randomized controlled trial, that field instead used well-designed observational studies to derive claims and principles. These findings then informed later stages in the broader program of research, including randomized controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation.

In the science of reading, principles and instructional strategies should indeed capitalize on a program of research inclusive of multiple methodologies. Yet, as the public health domain ultimately takes direction from the efficacy of smoking cessation programs, so too must the science of reading take direction from theoretically informed and well-designed experimental and quasi-experimental studies of promising strategies when the intention is to evaluate instructional practices. The use of experimental (i.e., randomized trials) and quasi-experimental (e.g., regression discontinuity, propensity score matching, interrupted time series) designs, in which an intervention is competed against counterfactual conditions, such as typical practice or alternative interventions, provides the strongest causal credibility regarding which instructional strategies are effective. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) of the Institute of Education Sciences (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, 2020) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015 ) are efforts by the US Department of Education to hierarchically characterize the levels of evidence currently available for instructional practices in education. The WWC uses a review framework, developed by methodological and statistical experts, for evaluating the quality and scope of evidence for specific instructional practices based on features of the design, implementation, and analysis of studies. Similarly, ESSA uses four tiers that focus on both the design of the study and the results of the study in which the tiers differ based on the quantity of evidence and quality of evidence supporting an approach. For both WWC and ESSA, quantity of evidence refers to the number of well-designed and well-implemented studies, and quality of evidence is defined by the ability of a study’s methods to allow for alternative explanations of a finding to be ruled out, for which the randomized controlled trial provides the strongest method.

As outlined above, the “science of reading” utilizes multiple research approaches to generate ideas about reading. Ultimately, the highest priority in the science of reading should be the replicable and generalizable knowledge from observational and experimental methods, rooted in a deductive research approach to knowledge generation that is framed in a correspondence theory of truth. In this manner, the accumulated evidence is built on a research foundation by which theories, principles, and hypotheses have been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny to determine the degree to which they hold up across variations in samples, measures, and contexts. In the following sections, we summarize issues related to the nature, development, and instruction of reading for which we believe the science of reading either has or has not yielded compelling evidence, identify what we believe are promising areas for which sufficient evidence has not yet accumulated, and suggest a number of areas that we believe will help move the science of reading forward, increasing knowledge and enhancing its positive impacts for a variety of stakeholders.

Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In this section, we focus on a number of findings centrally important for understanding the development and teaching of reading in alphabetic languages. The evidence base provides answers varying across orthographic regularity (e.g., English vs. Spanish), reading subskill (i.e., decoding vs. comprehension), grade range or developmental level (e.g., early childhood, elementary, adolescence), and linguistic diversity (e.g., English language learners, dialect speakers).

There are large differences among alphabetic languages in the rules for how graphemes represent sounds in words (i.e., a language’s orthography). In languages like Spanish and Finnish there is a near one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is transparent, and they have shallow orthographies. In other languages, most notably English, there is often not a one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is opaque, and they have deep orthographies. Children must learn which words cannot be decoded based solely on letter-sound correspondence (e.g., two, knight, laugh) and learn to match these irregular spellings to the words they represent. Where a language’s orthography falls on the shallow-deep dimension affects how quickly children develop accurate and fluent word-reading skills ( Ellis et al., 2004 ; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and how much instruction on foundational reading skills is likely needed. Studies indicate that children learning to read in English are slower to acquire decoding skills (e.g., Caravolas et al., 2013 ). Ziegler et al. (1997) reported that 69% of monosyllabic words in English were consistent in spelling-to-phonology mappings and 31% of the phonology-to-spelling mappings were consistent. Thus, in teaching children to read in English, the “grain size” of phoneme, onset-rime, and whole word matters ( Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and the preservation of morphological regularities in English spelling matters (e.g., vine vs. vineyard ).

Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) “simple view of reading” model, which is supported by a significant amount of research, provides a useful framework for conceptualizing the development of reading skills across time. It also frames the elements for which it is necessary to provide instructional support. The ultimate goal of reading is to extract and construct meaning from text for a purpose. For this task to be successful, however, the reader needs skills in both word decoding and linguistic comprehension. Weaknesses in either area will reduce the capacity to achieve the goal of reading. Decoding skills and linguistic comprehension make independent contributions to the prediction of reading comprehension across diverse populations of readers ( Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012 ; Sabatini et al., 2010 ; Vellutino, et al., 2007 ). Results of several studies employing measurement strategies that allow modeling of each component as a latent variable indicate that decoding and linguistic comprehension account for almost all of the variance in reading comprehension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2015 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). The relative influence of these skill domains, however, changes across development. The importance of decoding skill in explaining variance in reading comprehension decreases across grades whereas the importance of linguistic comprehension increases (e.g., Catts et al., 2005 ; Foorman et al., 2018 ; García & Cain, 2014 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). By the time children are in high school linguistic comprehension and reading comprehension essentially form a single dimension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2018 ).

Children’s knowledge of the alphabetic principle (i.e., how letters and sounds connect) and knowledge of the morphophonemic nature of English are necessary to create the high-quality lexical representations essential to accurate and efficient decoding ( Ehri, 2005 ; Perfetti, 2007 ). Acquiring the alphabetic principle is dependent on understanding that words are composed of smaller sounds (i.e., phonological awareness, PA) and alphabet knowledge (AK). Both PA and AK are substantial correlates and predictors of decoding skills (e.g., Wagner & Torgesen, 1987 ; Wagner et al., 1994 ). Prior to formal reading instruction, children are developing PA and AK as well as other early literacy skills that are related to later decoding skills following formal reading instruction ( Lonigan et al., 2009 ; Lonigan et al., 1998 ; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998 ). Reading comprehension takes advantage of the reader’s ability to understand language. In most languages, written language and spoken language have high levels of overlap in their basic structure. Longitudinal studies indicate that linguistic comprehension skills from early childhood predict reading comprehension at the end of elementary school ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018 ; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010 ; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002 ; Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe, 2008 ). The developmental precursors to skilled reading are present prior to school entry. Consequently, differences between children in the development of these skills forecast later differences in reading skills and are useful for identifying children at risk for reading difficulties.

The science of reading provides numerous clear answers about the type and focus of reading instruction for the subskills of reading, depending on where children are on the continuum of reading development and children’s linguistic backgrounds. Much of this knowledge is summarized in the practice guides produced by the Institute of Education Sciences ( Baker et al., 2014 ; Foorman et al., 2016a ; Gersten et al., 2007 , 2008 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ; Shanahan et al., 2010 ) and in meta-analytic summaries of research (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Ehri, Nunes, Willows et al., 2001 ; NELP, 2008 ; Therrien, 2004 ; Wanzek et al., 2013 , 2016 ). Whereas the practice guides list several best practices, here we emphasize those practices classified as supported by strong or moderate evidence based on WWC standards.

Since the publication of the Report of the National Reading Panel ( National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000 ) and supported by subsequent research (e.g., Gersten et al., 2017a ; Foorman et al., 2016a ), it is clear that a large evidence base provides strong support for the explicit and systematic instruction of the component and foundational skills of decoding and decoding itself. That is, teaching children phonological awareness and letter knowledge, particularly when combined, results in improved word-decoding skills. Teaching children to decode words using systematic and explicit phonics instruction results in improved word-decoding skills. Such instruction is effective both for monolingual English-speaking children and children whose home language is other than English (i.e., dual-language learners; Baker et al., 2014 ; Gersten et al., 2007 ) as well as children who are having difficulties learning to read or who have an identified reading disability ( Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Gersten et al., 2008 ). Additionally, providing children with frequent opportunities to read connected text supports the development of word-reading accuracy and fluency as well as comprehension skills ( Foorman et al., 2016a ; Therrien, 2004 ).

Similarly, a number of instructional activities to promote the development of reading comprehension have strong or moderate supporting evidence. For younger children, teaching children how to use comprehension strategies and how to utilize the organizational structure of a text to understand, learn, and retain content supports better reading comprehension ( Shanahan et al., 2010 ). For older children, teaching the use of comprehension strategies also enhances reading comprehension ( Kamil et al., 2008 ) as does explicit instruction in key vocabulary, providing opportunities for extended discussion of texts, and providing instruction on foundational reading skills when children lack these skills; such instructional approaches are also effective for children with significant reading difficulties ( Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ).

Lack of Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In the above section, practices were highlighted that have sufficient evidence to warrant their widespread use. In this section, we address reading practices for which there is a lack of compelling evidence. Some practices have simply not yet been scientifically evaluated. Other practices have been evaluated, but either the evidence does not support their use based on the generalizability of the results or the studies in which they were evaluated were not of sufficient quality to meet a minimal standard of evidence (e.g., WWC standards). Although we lack sufficient space to present a comprehensive list of practices that do not have compelling evidence, we provide examples of practices that are commonplace and vary in the degree to which they have been scientifically studied.

Evidence-based decision making regarding effective literacy programs and practices for classroom use can be difficult. Often, there is no evidence of effectiveness for a program or the evidence is of poor quality. For instance, of the five most popular reading programs used nationwide (i.e., Units of Study for Teaching Reading, Journeys, Into Reading, Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery; Schwartz, 1999) only Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery, both interventions for struggling readers, have studies that meet WWC standards. The evidence indicates that there were mixed effects across outcomes for Leveled Literacy Intervention and positive or potentially positive effects for Reading Recovery (e.g., Chapman & Tunmer, 2016 ). Classroom reading programs are typically built around the notion of evidence-informed practices – teaching approaches that are grounded in quality research – but have not been subjected to direct scientific evaluation. As a consequence, it is currently impossible for schools to select basal reading programs that adhere to strict evidence-based standards (e.g., ESSA, 2015 ). As an alternative, schools must develop selection criteria for choosing classroom reading programs informed by the growing scientific evidence on instructional factors that support early reading development (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ; Foorman et al.2017 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

Common instructional approaches that lack generalizable empirical support include such practices as close reading ( Welsch et al., 2019 ), use of decodable text ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ), sustained silent reading ( NICHD, 2000 ), multisensory approaches ( Birsh, 2011 ), and the three-cueing system to support word recognition development (Seidenberg, 2017). Some of these instructional approaches rest on sound theoretical and pedagogical grounds. For example, giving beginning readers the opportunity to read decodable texts provides practice applying the grapheme-phoneme relations they have learned to successfully decode words ( Foorman et al., 2016a ), thus building lexical memory to support word reading accuracy and automaticity (Ehri, this issue). However, the only study to experimentally examine the impact of reading more versus less decodable texts as part of an early intervention phonics program for at risk first graders found no differences between the two groups on any of the posttest measures ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ). Such a result does not rule out the possibility of the usefulness of decodable texts but rather indicates the need to disentangle the active ingredients of effective interventions to specify what to use, when, how often, and for whom.

Similarly, multisensory approaches (e.g., Orton-Gillingham) that teach reading by using multiple senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, and movement) to help children make systematic connections between language, letters, and words ( Birsh, 2011 ) are commonplace and have considerable clinical support for facilitating reading development in children who struggle to learn to read. However, there is little scientific evidence that indicates that a multisensory approach is more effective than similarly structured phonological-based approaches that do not include a strong multisensory component (e.g., Boyer & Ehri, 2011 ; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006 ; Torgesen et al., 2001 ). With further research, we may find that a multisensory component is a critical ingredient of intervention for struggling readers, but we lack this empirical evidence currently.

Instruction in reading comprehension is another area where despite some studies showing moderate or strong support (see section on compelling evidence) other practices are employed despite limited support for them (e.g., Boulay et al., 2015 ). The complexity of reading comprehension relies on numerous cognitive resources and background knowledge; as a result, intervention directed exclusively at one component or another is not likely to be that impactful. For example, research shows a clear relation between breadth and depth of vocabulary and reading comprehension ( Wagner et al., 2007 ). One implication of this relation is that teaching vocabulary could improve reading comprehension. Numerous studies have tested this implication using instructional approaches that vary from teaching words in isolation to practices that involve instruction in the use of context to learn the meaning of unfamiliar words. Instruction has also included strategies to determine meaning of words through word study and morphological analysis (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007 ; Lesaux et al., 2014 ). Although these practices have been effective in increasing vocabulary knowledge of the words taught, there is limited evidence of transfer to untaught words (as measured by standardized measures) or to improvement in general reading comprehension ( Elleman et al., 2009 ; Lesaux et al., 2010 ). Such findings do not mean that vocabulary instruction is not a useful practice; rather, by itself, it is not sufficient to improve reading comprehension. To make meaningful gains, intervention for reading comprehension likely requires addressing multiple components of language as well as teaching content knowledge (see next section) to make sizable gains.

Other instructional practices go directly against what is known from the science of reading. For example, the three-cueing approach to support early word recognition (i.e., relying on a combination of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues simultaneously to formulate an intelligent hypothesis about a word’s identity) ignores 40 years of overwhelming evidence that orthographic mapping involves the formation of letter-sound connections to bond spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of specific words in memory (see Ehri, this issue). Moreover, relying on alternative cuing systems impedes the building of automatic word-recognition skill that is the hallmark of skilled word reading ( Stanovich, 1990 ; 1991 ). The English orthography, being both alphabetic-phonemic and morpho-phonemic, clearly privileges the use of various levels of grapheme-phoneme correspondences to read words ( Frost, 2012 ), with rapid context-free word recognition being the process that most clearly distinguishes good from poor readers ( Perfetti, 1992 ; Stanovich, 1980 ). Guessing at a word amounts to a lost learning trial to help children learn the orthography of the word and thus reduce the need to guess the word in the future ( Castles et al., 2018 ; Share, 1995 ).

Similarly, alternative approaches to improving reading skills for struggling readers often fall well outside the scientific consensus regarding sources of reading difficulties. Some of these approaches are based on the tenet that temporal processing deficits in the auditory (e.g., Tallal, 1984 ) and visual (e.g., Stein, 2019 ) systems of the brain are causally related to poor word-reading development. Although there is some evidence that typically developing and struggling readers differ on measures tapping auditory ( Casini et al., 2018 ; Protopapas, 2014 ) and visual (e.g., Eden et al., 1995; Olson & Datta, 2002 ) processing skill, there is little evidence to support the use of instructional programs designed to improve auditory or visual systems to ameliorate reading problems ( Strong et al., 2011 ). Further, interventions designed to decrease visual confusion (e.g., Dyslexie font) or modify transient channel processing (e.g., Irlen lenses) to improve reading skill for children with reading disability have also failed to garner scientific support ( Hyatt et al., 2009 ; Iovino et al., 1998 ; Marinus et al., 2016 ). Similarly, although use of video games to improve reading via enhanced visual attention is reported to be an effective intervention for children with reading disability ( Peters et al., 2019 ), studies of this supplemental intervention approach have not compared it to standard supplemental approaches. Finally, studies of interventions designed to enhance other cognitive processes, such as working memory, also lack evidence effectiveness in terms of improved reading-related outcomes (e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 ).

Promising but Not (Yet) Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

There are many promising areas of research that are poised to provide compelling evidence to inform the science of reading in the coming years. As we do not have space to provide a comprehensive list, we highlight only a few promising areas in prevention research and elementary education research.

Promising Directions in Prevention Research

Research on the prevention of reading problems is critical for our ability to reduce the number of children who struggle learning to read. One area of prevention research that has great promise but needs more evidence is how to more fully develop preschoolers’ language abilities that support later reading success. Both correlational and experimental findings indicate that providing children with opportunities to engage in high-quality conversations, coupled with exposure to advanced language models, matters for language development ( Cabell et al., 2015 ; Dickinson & Porche, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). Yet, most programs have a more robust impact on children’s proximal language learning (i.e., learning taught words) than on generalized language learning as measured with standardized assessments ( Marulis & Neuman, 2010 ).

Promising studies that have demonstrated significant effects on children’s general language development elucidate potential points of leverage. First, improving the connection between the school and home contexts by including parents as partners can promote synergistic learning for children as language-learning activities in school and home settings are increasingly aligned (e.g., Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998 ). A second leverage point is increasing attention to children’s active use of language in the classroom to promote a rich dialogue between children and adults (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). A third leverage point is integrating content area instruction into early literacy instruction to improve language learning, for example, building children’s conceptual knowledge of the social and natural world and teaching vocabulary words within the context of related ideas (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2011 ).

Promising Directions in Elementary Education Research

We present two promising areas in reading research with elementary-age students, one focused on improving linguistic comprehension and one focused on improving decoding, consistent with the simple view of reading.

The knowledge a reader brings to a text is the chief determinant of whether the reader will understand that text ( Anderson & Pearson, 1984 ). Thus, building knowledge is an essential, yet neglected, part of improving linguistic comprehension (Cabell & Hwang, this issue). Teaching reading is most often approached in early elementary classrooms as a subject that is independent from other subjects, such as science and social studies ( Palinscar & Duke, 2004 ). As such, reading is taught using curricula that do not systematically build children’s knowledge of the social and natural world. Instruction in reading and the content areas does not have to be an either/or proposition. Rather, the teaching of reading and of content-area learning can be simultaneously taught and integrated to powerfully impact children’s learning of both reading and content knowledge (e.g., Connor et al., 2017 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Williams et al., 2014 ). This area of research is promising but not yet compelling, due to the small number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies that have examined either integrated content-area and literacy instruction or content-rich English Language Arts instruction in K-5 settings (approximately 31 studies). Through meta-analysis, this corpus of studies demonstrates that combining knowledge building and literacy approaches has a positive impact on both vocabulary and comprehension outcomes for elementary-age children ( Hwang et al., 2019 ). Further rigorous studies are needed that test widely used content-rich English Language Arts curricula (Cabell & Hwang, 2020, this issue); also required is new development of integrative and interdisciplinary approaches in this area.

There is also promising research on helping students to decode words more efficiently. It is widely accepted that students with reading difficulties often have underlying deficits in phonological processing (e.g., Brady & Schankweiler, 1991 ; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994 ; Torgesen, 2000 ; Vellutino et al., 1996 ) and these deficits are believed to disrupt the acquisition of spelling-to-sound translation routines that form the basis of early decoding-skill development (e.g., van IJzendoorn & Bus, 1994 ; Rack et al., 1992 ). For developing readers, decoding an unfamiliar letter string can result in either full or partial decoding. During partial decoding, the reader must match the assembled phonology from decoding with their lexical representation of a word ( Venezky, 1999 ). For example, encountering the word island might render the incorrect but partial decoding attempt, “izland”. A child’s flexibility with the partially decoded word is referred to as their “set for variability” or their ability to go from the decoded form to the correct pronunciation of a word. This skill serves as a bridge between decoding and lexical pronunciations and may be an important second step in the decoding process ( Elbro et al., 2012 ).

The matching of partial phonemic-decoding output is facilitated by the child’s decoding skills, the quality of the child’s lexical word representation, and by the potential contextual support of text ( Nation & Castles, 2017 ). Correlational studies indicate that students’ ability to go from a decoded form of a word to a correct pronunciation (their set for variability) predicts the reading of irregular words ( Tunmer & Chapman, 2012 ), regular words ( Elbro, et al., 2012 ), and nonwords ( Steacy et al., 2019a ). Set for variability has also been found to be a stronger predictor of word reading than phonological awareness in students in grades 2-5 (e.g., Steacy et al., 2019b ). Recent studies in this area suggest that children can benefit from being encouraged to engage with the irregularities of English ( Dyson et al., 2017 ) to promote the implicit knowledge structures needed to read and spell these complex words. Additional research suggests that set for variability training can be effective in promoting early word reading skills (e.g., Savage et al., 2018 ; Zipke, 2016 ). The work done in this area to date suggests that set for variability requires child knowledge structures and strategies, which can be developed through instruction, that allow successful matching of partial phonemic-decoding output with the corresponding phonological, morphological, and semantic lexical representations.

Where Do We Go Next in the Science of Reading?

Basic science research.

The science of reading has reached some consensus on the typical development of reading skill and how individual differences may alter this trajectory (e.g., Boscardin et al., 2008 ; Hjetland et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2019 ). Less is known about factors and mechanisms related to reading among diverse learners, a critical barrier to the field’s ability to address and prevent reading difficulty when it arises. Investigations with large and diverse participant samples are needed to improve understanding of how child characteristics additively and synergistically affect reading acquisition ( Hernandez, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2013 ). Insufficient research disentangles the influence of English-learner status for children who also have identified disabilities (Solari et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2005 ). Greater attention to how language variation (e.g., dialect use) and differences in language experience affect reading development is crucial ( Patton Terry et al., 2010 ; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018; Washington et al., 2018). New realizations of the interaction between child characteristics and the depth of the orthography have also highlighted the importance of implicit learning in early reading ( Seidenberg, 2005 ; Steacy et al., 2019). Innovative cross-linguistic research is exploring how diverse methods of representing pronunciation and meaning within different orthographies, and children’s developing awareness of these methods, jointly predict reading skills (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2006 ; Wade-Woolley, 2016 ). Furthermore, a better understanding of the role of executive function, socio-emotional resilience factors, and biopsychosocial risk variables (e.g., poverty and trauma) on reading development is critical. Additional research like this, in English and across languages, is needed to develop effective instruction and assessments for all leaners.

A clearer understanding of child and contextual influences on the development of reading also will support improvements in how early and accurately children at risk for reading difficulties and disabilities are identified. Currently, numerous challenges remain in identifying children early enough to maximize benefits of interventions ( Colenbrander et al., 2018 ; Gersten et al., 2017b ). Investigators often use behavioral precursors or correlates of reading to estimate children’s risk for reading failure. Whereas this work has shown some promise ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Compton et al., 2006 , 2010 ; Lyytinen et al., 2015 ; Thompson et al., 2015 ), identification of risk typically involves high error rates, especially for preschoolers and kindergarteners who might benefit most from early identification and intervention. Similar challenges to accuracy have emerged when identifying older children with reading disabilities. Historically, this process has relied on discrepancy models (e.g., such as between reading skill and general cognitive aptitude), often yielding a just single comparison on which decisions are based (Waesche et al., 2011).

Challenges to identification for both younger and older children may be best met with frameworks that recognize the multifactorial casual basis of reading problems ( Pennington et al., 2012 ). Newer models of identification that combine across multiple indicators of risk derived from current skill, and that augment these indicators with other metrics of potential risk, may yield improved identification and interventions (e.g., Erbeli et al., 2018 ; Spencer et al., 2011). In particular, future research will need to consider and combine, while considering both additive and interactive effects, a wide array of measures, which may include genetic, neurological, and biopsychosocial indicators ( Wagner et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, more evaluation is needed of some new models of identification that integrate both risk and protective, or resiliency, factors, to see if these models increase the likelihood of correctly identifying those children most in need of additional instructional support (e.g., Catts & Petscher, 2020 ; Haft et al., 2016 ). Even if beneficial, it is likely that for early identification to be maximally effective, early risk assessments will need to be combined with progress monitoring of response to instruction ( Miciak & Fletcher, 2020 ). Of course, for such an approach to be successful, all children must receive high-quality reading instruction from the beginning and interventions need to be in place to address children who show varying levels of risk ( Foorman et al., 2016a ). Identifying children at risk and providing appropriate intervention early on has the potential to significantly improve reading outcomes and reduce the negative consequences of reading failure.

Intervention Innovations

Despite successes, too many children still struggle to read novel text with understanding, and intervention design efforts have not fully met this challenge ( Compton et al., 2014 ; Phillips et al., 2016 ; Vaughn et al., 2017 ). Greater creativity and integration of research from a broader array of complementary fields, including cognitive science and behavioral genetics may be required to deal with long-standing problems. For example, genetic information may have causal explanatory power; randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of using such information to select and individualize instruction and intervention ( Hart, 2016 ).

The field would benefit from increased attention to the problem of fading intervention effects over time. Although there can be detectable effects of interventions several years after they are completed (e.g., Blachman et al., 2014 ; Vadasy et al., 2011 ; Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 ), invariably effect sizes reduce over time. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of interventions for phonemic awareness, fluency, and reading comprehension found a 40 percent reduction in effect sizes within one year post-intervention ( Suggate, 2016 ). Perhaps reading interventions with larger initial effects or sequential reading interventions with smaller but cumulating effects would be more resistant to fade-out.

Solutions to the problem of diminishing effects may be inspired by examples from other fields. The field of memory includes examples of content that appears immune from forgetting. This phenomenon has been called permastore ( Bahrick, 1984 ). For example, people only meaningfully exposed to a foreign language in school classes will still retain some knowledge of the language 50 years later. Additionally, expertise in the form of world-class performance appears to result from cumulative effects of long-term deliberate practice ( Ericsson, 1996 ), and skilled reading can be viewed as an example of expert performance ( Wagner & Stanovich, 1996 ). Informed by these concepts and by advances in early math instruction (e.g., Sarama et al., 2012 ; Kang et al., 2019 ), reading intervention studies should prioritize follow-up evaluations, including direct comparisons of follow-through strategies aimed at sustaining benefits from earlier instruction. For example, studies should evaluate booster interventions, professional development that better aligns cross-grade instruction, and how re-teaching and cumulative review may consolidate skill acquisition across time (e.g., Cepeda et al., 2006 ; Smolen et al., 2016 ).

Translational and Implementation Science

If the science of reading is to be applied in a manner resulting in achievement for all learners, the field must increase its focus on processes supporting implementation of evidence-based reading practices in schools. The field can leverage its considerable evidence-base to systematically investigate, with replication, both the effectiveness of reading instructional practices with diverse learners and to investigate processes that facilitate or prevent adoption, implementation, and sustainability of these practices (National Research Council, 2002; Schneider, 2018 ; Slavin, 2002 ). Research on these processes in educational contexts may be best facilitated by making use of methodological and conceptual tools developed within the traditions of translation and implementation science research ( Gilliland et al., 2019 ; Eccles & Mittman, 2006 ). For example, these frameworks can support studies on whether and how educators and policymakers use information about evidence to inform decision making (e.g., Farley-Ripple et al., 2018 ) and studies on how institutional routines may need to be adapted to best integrate new procedures and practices (e.g., scheduling changes in the school day; Foorman et al., 2016b ).

Reading research that uses translational and implementation science frameworks and methodologies will make more explicit the processes of adoption, implementation and sustainability and how these interact within diverse settings and with multiple populations ( Brown et al., 2017 ; Fixsen et al., 2005 , 2013 ). This work will be guided by new questions, not only asking “what works” but also “what works for whom under what conditions” and “what factors promote sustainability of implementation.” Innovative studies would adhere to rigorous scientific standards, prioritize hypothesis testing within a deductive, experimental framework, and leverage qualitative methodologies to systematically explore implementation processes and factors ( Brown et al., 2017 ). Results could iteratively inform the breadth of scientific reading research, including basic mechanisms related to reading and the development of novel assessments and interventions to support achievement among diverse learners in diverse settings ( Cook & Odom, 2013 ; Douglas et al., 2015 ; Forman et al., 2013 ).

There has recently been a resurgence of the debate on the science of reading, and in this article, we described the existing evidence base and possible future directions. Compelling evidence is available to guide understanding of how reading develops and identify proven instructional practices that impact both decoding and linguistic comprehension. Whereas there is some evidence that is either not compelling or has yet to be generated for instructional practices and programs that are widely used, the scientific literature on reading is ever-expanding through contributions from the fields education, psychology, linguistics, communication science, neuroscience, and computational sciences. As these additions to the literature mature and contribute to an evidence base, we anticipate they will inform and shape the science of reading as well as the science of teaching reading.

Acknowledgments

First author was determined by group consensus. Authors equally contributed and are listed and alphabetically. The authors’ work was supported by funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A160241, R305A170430, R305F100005, R305F100027, R324A180020, R324B19002) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD52120, P20HD091013, HD095193, HD072286).

• Anderson RC, & Pearson PD (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, & Mosenthal P (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (1st ed., pp. 255–291). New York: Longman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker S, Lesaux N, Jayanthi M, Dimino J, Proctor CP, Morris J, … Newman-Gonchar R (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahrick HP (1984). Semantic memory content in permastore: Fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 113 ,1–29. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.113.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck IL, & McKeown MG (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction . The Elementary School Journal , 107 ( 3 ), 251–271. DOI: 10.1086/511706 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkeley S, Scruggs TE, & Mastropier MA (2012). Reading comprehension instruction for student with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 31 , 423–436. 10.1177/0741932509355988 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birsh JR (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills . Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Clonan SM, Shaywitz BA, & Shaywitz SE (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up . Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 ( 3 ), 444–461. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.444 [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Murray MS, Munger KA, & Vaughn MG (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later? Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 ( 1 ), 46–57. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/a0033663 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boscardin CK, Muthén B, Francis DJ, & Baker EL (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories . Journal of Educational Psychology , 100 , 192–208. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulay B, Goodson B, Frye M, Blocklin M, & Price C (2015). Summary of Research Generated by Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers. NCEE 2016-4001 . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer N, & Ehri LC (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 15 ( 5 ), 440–470. 10.1080/10888438.2010.520778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady S (2020). Strategies used in education for resisting the evidence and implications of the science of reading . The Reading Journal , 1 ( 1 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady SA, & Shankweiler DP (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, Collins LM, Duan N, Mittman BS, Wallace A, Tabak RG, Ducharme L, Chambers DA, Neta G, Wiley T, Landsverk J, Cheung K, & Cruden G (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation . Annual Review of Public Health , 38 , 1–22. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabell SQ, Justice LM, McGinty AS, DeCoster J, & Forston L (2015). Teacher-child conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 30 , 80–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calkins L (2020). No one gets to own the term “The Science of Reading” . Retrieved from: https://readingandwritingproject.org/news/no-one-gets-to-own-the-term-the-science-of-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Caravolas M, Lervåg A, Defior S, Málkova G,S, & Hulme C (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies . Psychological Science , 24 , 1398–1407. 10.1177/0956797612473122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casini L, Pech-Georgel C, & Ziegler JC (2018). It's about time: Revisiting temporal processing deficits in dyslexia . Developmental Science , 21 ( 2 ), 1–14. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12530 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castles A, Rastle K, & Nation K (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 19 ( 1 ), 5–51. 10.1177/1529100618772271 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Adlof S, & Weismer SE (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 49 , 278–293. 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Herrera S, Nielsen D, & Bridges, 2015. Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 28 , 1407–1425. 10.1007/s11145-015-9576-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Hogan T, & Adlof S (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In Catts H & Kamhi A, A. (Eds.). Connections between language and reading disabilities . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts HW, & Petscher Y (2020, March 25). A cumulative risk and protection model of dyslexia . 10.35542/osf.io/g57ph [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted JT, & Rohrer D (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis . Psychological Bulletin , 132 ( 3 ), 354–380. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall J (1967). Learning to read: The great debate . New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman JW, & Tunmer WE (2016). Is Reading Recovery an effective intervention for students with reading difficulties? A critique of the i3 scale-up study . Reading Psychology , 37 ( 7 ), 1025–1042. 10.1080/02702711.2016.1157538 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colenbrander D, Ricketts J, & Breadmore HL (2018). Early identification of dyslexia: Understanding the issues . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 49 , 817–828. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, & Bryant JD (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology , 98 , 394–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Bouton B, Gilbert JK, Barquero LA, Cho E, & Crouch RC (2010). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage screening process . Journal of Educational Psychology . 102 , 327–340. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Miller AC, Elleman AM, & Steacy LM (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 55–73. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.836200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor CMD, Dombek J, Crowe EC, Spencer M, Tighe EL, Coffinger S, … Petscher Y (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI) . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 ( 3 ), 301–320. doi: 10.1037/edu0000128 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook BG, & Odom SL (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education . Exceptional Children , 79 , 135–144. 10.1177/001440291307900201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dane FC (1990). Research methods (Vol. 120 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene S (2011). The massive impact of literacy on the brain and its consequences for education . Human Neuroplascticity and Education , 117 , 19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene-Lambertz G, Monzalvo K, & Dehaene S (2018). The emergence of the visual word form: Longitudinal evolution of category-specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition . PLoS biology , 16 ( 3 ), e2004103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeWalt DA, & Hink A (2009). Health literacy and child health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature . Pediatrics , 124 ( Supplement 3 ), S265–S274. 10.1542/peds.2009-1162B [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickinson DK, & Porche MV (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities . Child Development , 82 , 870–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas NF, Campbell WN, & Hinckley J (2015). Implementation science: Buzzword or game changer? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 58 , S1827–S1836. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0302. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson H, Best W, Solity J, & Hulme C (2017). Training mispronunciation correction and word meanings improves children’s ability to learn to read words . Scientific Studies of Reading , 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1315424 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles MP & Mittman BS (2006). Welcome to implementation science . Implementation Science , 1 , 1–3. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden GF, VanMeter JW, Rumsey JM, Maisog JM, Woods RP, & Zeffiro TA (1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging . Nature , 382 ( 6586 ), 66–69. DOI: 10.1038/382066a0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues . Scientific Studies of Reading , 9 , 167–188. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning . Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 5–21. 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, & Willows DM (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 71 , 393–447. 10.3102/00346543071003393 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Willows D,M, Schuster BV, Yaghoub-Zadeh Z, & Shanahan T (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Reading Research Quarterly , 36 , 250–287. 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbro C, de Jong PF, Houter D, & Nielsen A (2012). From spelling pronunciation to lexical access: A second step in word decoding? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 4 ), 341–359. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elleman A, Lindo E, Morphy P, & Compton D (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis , Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 , 1–44. 10.1080/19345740802539200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis NC, Natsume I, Stavropoulou K, Hoxhallari L, van Daal VHP, Polyzoe N, et al. (2004). The effects of the orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts . Reading Research Quarterly , 39 , 438–468. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F (2019). Translating research findings in genetics of learning disabilities to special education instruction . Mind, Brain, and Education , 13 ( 2 ), 74–79. 10.1111/mbe.12196 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F, Hart SA, Wagner RW, & Taylor J (2018). Examining the etiology of reading disability as conceptualized by the hybrid model . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 2 ), 167–180. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1407321. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson KA (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016) .
• Farley-Ripple, May H, Karpyn A, Tilley K, & McDonough K (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework . Educational Researcher , 47 ( 4 ), 235–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A, & Van Dyke M (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs . Exceptional Children , 79 , 213–230. 10.1177/001440291307900206 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM & Wallace F (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature . Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). [ Google Scholar ]
• Flesch R (1955). Why Johnny can’t read - and what you can do about it . NY: Harper & Brothers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Beyler N, Borradaile K, Coyne M, Denton C, Dimino J, …Wissel S (2016a). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Dombek J, & Smith K (2016b). Seven elements important to successful implementation of early literacy intervention . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 2016 ( 154 ), 49–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Koon S, Petscher Y, Mitchell A, & Truckenmiller A (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades . Journal of Educational Psychology , 107 , 884–899. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Petscher Y, Herrera S (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10 . Learning and Individual Differences , 63 , 12–23. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BF, Smith KG, & Kosanovich ML (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 (REL 2016-219) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forman SG, Shapiro ES, Codding RS, Gonzales JE, Reddy LA, Rosenfield SA, Sanetti LMH, & Stoiber KC (2013). Implementation science and school psychology . School Psychology Quarterly , 28 , 77–100. 10.1037/spq0000019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost R (2012). Toward a universal model of reading . Behavioral & Brain Sciences , 35 , 263–279. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001841 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García JR, & Cain K (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English . Review of Educational Research , 84 ( 1 ), 74–111. 10.3102/0034654313499616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Baker SK, Shanahan T, Linan-Thompson S, Collins P, & Scarcella R (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/20074011.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, & Tilly WD (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Jayanthi M, & Dimino J (2017a). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national response to intervention evaluation . Exceptional Children , 83 , 244–254. 10.1177/0014402917692847 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Newman-Gonchar R, Haymond K, & Dimino J (2017b). What is the evidence base for Response to Intervention in reading in grades 1–3? (REL 2016-129) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573686.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillam RB, Loeb DF, Hoffman LM, Bohman T, Champlin CA, Thibodeau L, … & Friel-Patti S (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 51 ( 1 ), 97–119. 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/007) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilliland CT, White J, Gee B, Kreeftmeijer-Vegter R, Bietrix F, Ussi AE, Hajduch M, Kocis P, Chiba N, Hirasawa R, Suematsu M, Bryans J, Newman S, Hall MD, & Austin CP (2019). The fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist . ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science , 2 , 213–261. 10.1021/acsptsci.9b00022 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez JE, Pollard-Durodola S, Simmons DC, Taylor AB, Davis MJ, Kim M, & Simmons L (2011). Developing low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 4 ( 1 ), 25–52. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2010.487927 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman KS (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game , Literacy Research and Instruction , 6 ( 4 ), 126–135, 10.1080/19388076709556976 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough PB, & Tunmer WE (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability . Remedial and Special Education , 7 , 6–10. 10.1177/074193258600700104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haft SL, Myers CA, & Hoeft F (2016). Socio-emotional and cognitive resilience in children with reading disabilities . Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 133–141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanford E (2019). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers . Retrieved from: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart SA (2016). Precision education initiative: Moving toward personalized education . Mind, Brain, and Education , 10 ( 4 ), 209–211.doi: 10.1111/mbe.12109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez DJ (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://files-eric-ed-gov.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/fulltext/ED518818.pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00004 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang H, Cabell SQ, White TG, & Joiner R (2019, December). A systematic review of the research on the effect of knowledge building in literacy instruction on comprehension and vocabulary in the elementary years. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association , Tampa, FL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyatt KJ, Stephenson J, & Carter M (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses . Education & Treatment of Children , 32 ( 2 ), 313–342. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iovino I, Fletcher JM, Breitmeyer BG, & Foorman BR (1998). Colored overlays for visual perceptual deficits in children with reading disability and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Are they differentially effective? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , 20 ( 6 ), 791–806. DOI: 10.1076/jcen.20.6.791.1113 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel SE, & Duffy GG (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Peyton JA, Sanders EA, & Vadasy PF (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring . Scientific Studies of Reading , 8 , 53–85. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyce E (2020, January 22). Scientific Racism 2.0 (SR2.0): An erroneous argument from genetics which inadvertently refines scientific racism . 10.35542/osf.io/f7jnh [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, & Torgesen J (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/adlit_pg_082608.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang CY, Duncan GJ, Clements DH, Sarama J, & Bailey DH (2019). The roles of transfer of learning and forgetting in the persistence and fadeout of early childhood mathematics interventions . Journal of Educational Psychology , 111 , 590–603. 10.1037/edu0000297 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kershaw S & Schatschneider C (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading . Reading and Writing , 25 , 433–464. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim JS, Burkhauser MA, Mesite LM, Asher CA, Relyea JE, Fitzgerald J, & Elmore J (2020). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention . Journal of Educational Psychology . Advance online publication. 10.1037/edu0000465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo LJ, & Anderson RC (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective . Educational Psychologist , 41 , 161–180. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu YD (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 289–303. 10.1177/0741932518762055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M, … & Fontana MA (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment . Nature Genetics , 50 ( 8 ), 1112–1121.doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Faller SE, & Kelley JG (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools . Reading Research Quarterly , 45 ( 2 ), 196–228. 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Kelley JG, & Harris JR (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial . American Educational Research Journal , 51 ( 6 ), 1159–1194. 10.3102/0002831214532165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little CW, Haughbrook R, & Hart SA (2017). Cross-study differences in the etiology of reading comprehension: A meta-analytical review of twin studies . Behavior Genetics , 47 ( 1 ), 52–76. 10.1007/s10519-016-9810-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Anthony JL, Phillips BM, Purpura DJ, Wilson SB, & McQueen J (2009). The nature of preschool phonological processing abilities and their relations to vocabulary, general cognitive abilities, and print knowledge . Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 , 345–358. 10.1037/a0013837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL, & Barker TA (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in two- to five-year-old children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 , 294–311. 10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan C, Burgess S, & Schatschneider C (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 260–273. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Nakamoto J, & Eppe S (2013). Developmental trajectories of preschool early literacy skills: A comparison of language-minority and monolingual-English children . Developmental Psychology , 49 , 1943–1957. 10.1037/a0031408 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Phillips BM, & Clancy-Menchetti J (2011). Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 24 , 305–337. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9214-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, & Whitehurst GJ (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 13 , 263–290. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80038-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyytinen H, Erskine J, Hämäläinen J, Torppa M & Ronimus M (2015). Dyslexia-early identification and prevention: Highlights of the Jyvaskyla longitudinal study of dyslexia . Current Developmental Disorders Report , 2 , 330–338. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher B (2008). Personal genomes: The case of missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21. doi: 10.1038/456018a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J, & Lesaux N (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 102 ( 3 ), 701–711. 10.1037/a0019135. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinus E, Mostard M, Segers E, Schubert TM, Madelaine A, & Wheldall K (2016). A special font for people with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why? Dyslexia , 22 ( 3 ), 233–244. doi: 10.1002/dys.1527 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marulis LM, & Neuman SB (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 80 ( 3 ), 300–335. doi: 10.3102/0034654310377087 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby-Lervåg M, Redick TS, & Hulme C (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 11 ( 4 ), 512–534. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635612 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miciak J, & Fletcher JM (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219420906801 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, & Castles A (2017). Putting the learning into orthographic learning . Theories of reading development , 148–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). National reading panel—Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel . Retrieved at https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
• Neuman SB, & Kaefer T (2018). Developing low-income children’s vocabulary and content knowledge through a shared book reading program . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 52 , 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson R & Datta H (2002). Visual-temporal processing in reading-disabled and normal twins . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 15 ( 1-2 ), 127–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palinscar AS, & Duke NK (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement . The Elementary School Journal , 105 ( 2 ), 183–197. doi: 10.1086/428864 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton-Terry N, Connor CM, Thomas-Tate S, & Love M (2010). Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 53 ( 1 ), 126–145. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0058) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng P, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Elleman AM, Kearns DM, Gilbert JK, … & Patton S III (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 , 195–208. 10.1177/00222194188090 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennington BF, Santerre-Lemmon L, Rosenberg J, MacDonald B, Boada R, et al. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121 , 212–224. doi: 10.1037/a0025823 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti C (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 ( 4 ), 357–383. 10.1080/10888430701530730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti CA (1992). The representation problems in reading acquisition. In Gough PB, Ehri LC, & Treiman R (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters JL, De Losa L, Bavin EL, & Crewther SG (2019). Efficacy of dynamic visuo-attentional interventions for reading in dyslexic and neurotypical children: A systematic review . Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 100 , 58–76. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips BM, Connor CM, Lonigan CJ, Willis KB, & Crowe E (presented 2016, July). Supporting language and comprehension in second grade: Results from a Tier 2 efficacy trial. Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading , Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Protopapas A (2014). From temporal processing to developmental language disorders: Mind the gap . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 369 ( 1634 ), 20130090. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rack JP, Snowling MJ, & Olson RK (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review . Reading Research Quarterly , 27 ( 1 ), 28–53. doi: 10.2307/747832 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rayner K, Foorman BR, Perfetti CA, Pesetsky D, & Seidenberg MS (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 2 ( 2 ), 31–74. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.00004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reutzel DR, Petscher Y, & Spichtig AN (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement . The Journal of Educational Research , 105 ( 6 ), 404–415. 10.1080/00220671.2011.629693 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchey KD, & Goeke JL (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham—based reading instruction: A review of the literature . The Journal of Special Education , 40 ( 3 ), 171–183. 10.1177/00224669060400030501 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabatini JP, Sawaki Y, Shore JR, & Scarborough HS (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 43 , 122–138. 10.1177/0022219409359343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarama J, Clements DH, Wolfe CB, & Spitler ME (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 5 , 105–135. 10.3102/0002831212469270 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage R, Georgiou G, Parrila R, & Maiorino K (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 3 ), 225–247. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider M (2018, December 17). A more systematic approach to replicating research . Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/12-17-2018.asp [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S (2019, December). The most popular reading programs aren't backed by science . Retrieved from EDWeek https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/12/04/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, & McDuffie KA (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research . Exceptional Children , 73 ( 4 ), 392–416. 10.1177/001440290707300401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seidenberg MS (2005). Connectionist models of word reading . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 14 ( 5 ), 238–242. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00372.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selzam S, Dale PS, Wagner RK, DeFries JC, Cederlöf M, O’Reilly PF, … & Plomin R (2017). Genome-wide polygenic scores predict reading performance throughout the school years . Scientific Studies of Reading , 21 ( 4 ), 334–349.doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1299152 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour PH, Aro M, & Erskine JM (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in european orthographies . British Journal of Psychology , 94 ( 2 ), 143–174. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1348/000712603321661859 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan T, Callison K, Carriere C, Duke NK, Pearson PD, Schatschneider C, & Torgesen J (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Share DL (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition . Cognition , 55 , 151–218. 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research . Educational Researcher , 31 , 15–21. 10.3102/0013189x031007015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith (1971). Understanding Reading . New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smolen P, Zhang Y, & Byrne JH (2016). The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 17 ( 2 ), 77–88. 10.1038/nrn.2015.18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency . Reading Research Quarterly , 16 ( 1 ), 32–71. DOI: 10.2307/747348 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity . Developmental Review , 10 ( 1 ), 72–100. 10.1016/0273-2297(90)90005-O [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, & Pearson PD (Eds.), Handbook of reading research , Vol. 2 (p. 418–452). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers . Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich (2003). Understanding the styles of science in the study of reading . Scientific Studies of Reading , 7 ( 2 ), 105–126, 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0702_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE, & Siegel LS (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model . Journal of Educational Psychology , 86 ( 1 ), 24–53. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Compton DL, Petscher Y, Elliott JD, Smith K, Rueckl JG, Sawi O, Frost SJ, & Pugh K (2019a). Development and prediction of context-dependent vowel pronunciation in elementary readers . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 1 ), 49–63. 10.1080/10888438.2018.1466303 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Wade-Woolley L, Rueckl JG, Pugh KR, Elliott JD, & Compton DL (2019b). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: Word and child predictors in typically developing readers and students at-risk for reading disabilities . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 6 ), 523–532. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2019.1620749 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein J (2019). The current status of the magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia . Neuropsychologia , 130 , 66–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch S, & Whitehurst GR (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal, structural model . Developmental Psychology , 38 , 934–947 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strong GK, Torgerson CJ, Torgerson D, & Hulme C (2011). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'fast ForWord' language intervention program . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 52 ( 3 ), 224–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suggate SP (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effect of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension analyses . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 49 , 77–96. 10.1177/0022219414528540 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallal P (1984). Temporal or phonetic processing deficit in dyslexia? That is the question . Applied Psycholinguistics , 5 ( 2 ), 167–169. 10.1017/S0142716400004963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Therrien WJ (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 25 , 253–261. 10.1177/07419325040250040801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson PA, Hulme C, Nash HM, Gooch D, Hayiou-Thomas E & Snowling MJ (2015). Developmental dyslexia: Predicting risk . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 56 , 976–987. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12412 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15 ( 1 ), 55–64. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KK, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 34 ( 1 ), 33–58. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400104 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tunmer WE, & Chapman JW (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 2 ), 122–140. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.542527 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, Nelson JR, & Sanders EA (2011). Longer term effects of a tier 2 kindergarten vocabulary intervention for English learners . Remedial and Special Education , 34 , 91–101. 10.1177/0741932511420739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, & Sanders EA (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for lower-skilled first graders: The influence of language status and word reading skills on third-grade literacy outcomes . Reading & Writing , 26 , 821–843. 10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn MH, & Bus AG (1994). Meta-analytic confirmation of the nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia . Reading Research Quarterly , 3 , 267–275. 10.2307/747877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Martinez LR, Wanzek J, Roberts G, Swanson E, & Fall AM (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 , 22–34. 10.1037/edu0000069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen R, & Denckla MB (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability . Journal of Educational Psychology 88 , 601–638. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Tunmer WE, Jaccard J, & Chen S (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 , 3–32. DOI: 10.1080/10888430709336632 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venezky RL (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English Orthography . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verhoeven L, & van Leeuwe J (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 22 , 407–423. 10.1002/acp.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Woolley L (2016). Prosodic and phonemic awareness in children’s reading of long and short words . Reading and Writing , 29 , 371–382. 10.1007/s11145-015-9600-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Edwards AA, Malkowski A, Schatschneider C, Joyner RE, Wood S, Zirps FA (2019). Combining old and new for better understanding and predicting dyslexia . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 165 , 1–11. doi: 10.1002/cad.20289 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Francis DJ, & Morris RD (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 20 ( 1 ), 6–15. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00115.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Muse AE, & Tannenbaum KR (2007). Promising avenues for better understanding implications of vocabulary development for reading comprehension. In Wagner R. Muse A, Tannenbaum K (Eds). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension . New York: Guilford Press. pp. 276–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Stanovich KE (1996). Expertise in reading. In Ericsson KA (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Torgesen JK (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills . Psychological Bulletin , 101 , 192–212. 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner R, Torgesen J, & Rashotte C (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study . Developmental Psychology , 30 , 73–87. 10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, & Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3 . Educational Psychology Review , 28 , 551–576. 10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca NK, Metz K, Murray CS, Roberts G, & Danielson L (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3 . Review of Educational Research , 83 , 163–195. 10.3102/0034654313477212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasik BA, & Hindman AH (2020). Increasing preschoolers’ vocabulary development through a streamlined teacher professional development intervention . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsch JG, Powell JJ, & Robnolt VJ (2019). Getting to the core of close reading: What do we really know and what remains to be seen? Reading Psychology , 40 ( 1 ), 95–116. 10.1080/02702711.2019.1571544 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitehurst GJ & Lonigan CJ (1998). Child development and emergent literacy . Child Development , 69 , 848–872. 10.2307/1132208 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams JP, Pollini S, Nubla-Kung AM, Snyder AE, Garcia A, Ordynans JG, & Atkins JG (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 , 1–17. doi: 10.1037/a0033215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, & Goswami U (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory . Psychological Bulletin , 131 ( 1 ), 3–29. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, Stone G, & Jacobs A (1997). What is the pronunciation for –ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistence in English . Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 29 ( 4 ), 600–618. 10.3758/BF03210615 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zipke M (2016). The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability . First Language , 36 ( 1 ), 71–86. doi: 10.1177/0142723716639495 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

What is Bionic Reading and Why You Should Care

If you’re anything like us here at Basmo, your passion for books and reading goes way beyond the borders of traditional, recreational reading. This activity has been around for centuries and its value is undeniable. The benefits in terms of general knowledge, physical and mental health, and the success that is generally associated with having healthy reading habits have determined people to spend decades trying to figure out ways to read more and better. 

Bionic reading seems to be the most recently developed reading method and while its effects are still being studied and analyzed, the claims look quite promising. 

Since we are dedicated to learning everything there is to know about books and reading here at Basmo, we did some research to provide you with the most complete and accurate information about bionic reading and how it can help you become a more efficient reader.

What is bionic reading?

Bionic reading is a newly developed reading method designed to aid in the speed reading process through a couple of tweaks. The method was recently invented by a Swiss developer called Renato Casuut and he claims that by guiding your eyes through “fixation points”, your reading speed and level of comprehension are going to be improved. What this actually means is that through bionic reading, you are actually reading a text where several letters are written in bold in every word. 

Starting from the premise that some fonts are easier and quicker to read than others , it does make sense that tweaking the way words look on a piece of paper can have an impact on our reading speed. Bionic reading takes this to a different level, by taking advantage of the way our brain works and its habit to fill in the blanks. By having the first couple of letters in every word written in bold, your brain tends to use those as fixation points and use its previous reading experience to complete the word without actually reading the rest of the letters. 

Want to start reading more? Try Basmo book tracker today!

Basmo can easily help you set and reach your reading early goals. It’s super easy to use and 100% free to download, so what have you got to lose?

Does bionic reading work?

Since this reading method has been developed very recently, there is still no bionic reading study for us to examine and share conclusions from. Considering the claims of the method, we are fairly confident that studies are upcoming in the near future, but until then, all we have to rely on is our own experience and the experience of others.

Those who used bionic reading tend to agree that it does have a positive effect on reading speed and comprehension. In theory, the brain is capable of absorbing information at a much higher rate than your eyes are able to read. Since the whole purpose of the method is to reduce the involvement of your eyes in the reading process by only pushing them to read part of each word instead of the whole thing, logic dictates that bionic reading really does increase reading speed.

What is still to be revealed through studies is how the method works on different people. While some of those who used bionic reading can confirm that the method works and increased their reading speed, others claimed to have felt no real effect or even that they found it too distracting for prolonged reading sessions. 

While there is no hard evidence to suggest that bionic reading is an effective way to increase reading speed, we must admit that the method makes sense and that the claims of its developer are quite believable.

Should you use bionic reading?

If you are a passionate reader and you are interested in all aspects of reading, we can’t see why you wouldn’t give bionic reading a shot. While we have no hard evidence to back us up to encourage you to try it in order to improve your reading speed, we don’t have anything that would suggest it could have a negative impact on your performance either.

It is up to you to give it a try and see for yourself if the claims of its developer are true for you or not. We are all unique and we respond quite differently to certain things. While bionic reading could turn out to be the thing that’s been missing from certain readers’ lives, it could have no effect on others. What you should definitely take into account is the fact that before you start using it, you will need to understand exactly how it works and how you should apply its principles. Luckily for you, we found out everything there is to know about bionic reading and we will be expanding on its functionality and methodology further below.

How does bionic reading work?

To understand how this method was developed, we first need to have a quick look at what is happening inside our brains when we read . The most important thing to factor in when analyzing the way we read is that the action is based on recognizing shapes, decoding their meaning when placed together, and comprehending the message these symbols are sending when they are placed in a certain order. 

It is a complex process our brains weren’t naturally designed to be able to complete. Learning to read fluently generally takes a couple of years and it leads to significant changes in our brain’s anatomy and operation method. 

That being said, bionic reading takes our ability to recognize shapes and decode their meaning to a new level. As we become more experienced readers , our brain tends to no longer needs the entire word to understand its meaning, because it recognizes its shape from previous encounters. 

Remember this message that went viral a couple of years ago?

“7H15 M3554G3 53RV35 7O PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5! 1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5! 1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG 17 WA5 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3 Y0UR M1ND 1S R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY W17H0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17, B3 PROUD!”

Moreover, research conducted at Cambridge University has shown that letters don’t even need to be in the correct order within words for our brains to be able to understand them. According to the results of the study, people are able to read words regardless of how scrambled they are as long as the first and last letters were correctly placed at the beginning and the ending of a word. Snuods pttrey fcasintanig, rhgit?

In the same way, your brain adapts to reading this text that has both numbers and letters or words with scrambled letters by recognizing the shapes of words and doing the rest of the work based on previous experience, bionic reading exploits our brain’s ability to autocomplete words based solely on their first couple of letters and the overall context.

By reading just the first couple of letters from each word, the brain is forced to use its previous experience to complete the words while reading, which makes the process faster. Also, because the brain is forced to work just a little bit harder than it normally does when reading, the developer of the bionic reading method claims that comprehension is also improved because of the higher level of involvement that is forced upon our concentration and focus. 

How to use bionic reading?

Bionic reading comes, at least for the moment, as an app or API that needs to be used in order for you to be able to take advantage of the method. You can either use the Android or iOS apps on your phone, or you can choose the browser app that can be used on your laptop or PC. The apps allow you to convert regular text into bionic reading text and you can easily do so by copying and pasting the desired text in the app of your choice. 

For the moment, very few apps come with a bionic reading functionality built in but given the facts that the method claims to provide better reading speed and performance and that the API is free to download and use as an enterprise, we expect it to become quite a popular option in the coming years.

For now, if you are a fan of the method, you should know that the apps will allow you to convert texts from all kinds of different formats from regular text to bionic reading text, and that includes e-books.

One thing you are definitely going to want when you are going to try bionic reading for the first time is to measure your reading speed and see how effective it is for you. Luckily for you, your reading speed is now easier to measure than ever. Using a reading tracking app like Basmo will be extremely beneficial for you.

With Basmo , for example, it couldn’t be easier. Any reading session you start within the app will be timed and your reading performance will be constantly monitored. The app is going to automatically calculate (or predict) your reading speed based on the duration of your reading session and the number of pages you go through.

To test the effect of bionic reading on your speed, simply read a couple of pages with regular text and record your reading speed with Basmo. Afterward, convert a text into bionic reading material and measure your speed again. Comparing the two results is going to provide you with a pretty clear idea of how effective bionic reading is.

What are some bionic reading examples?

Th is i s wh at a bio nic read ing te xt loo ks li ke. Wh at d o y ou thi nk, do es i t ma ke y ou re ad fas ter th an y ou norm ally wou ld beca use o f t he anc hor poi nts th at a re bol ded i n eve ry wo rd? D o y ou fe el li ke yo ur ey es on ly re ad t he bol ded lett ers a t t he begin ning o f wor ds a nd t he bra in fil ls i n t he bla nks?

I n t he Bas mo off ice, t he opin ions abo ut bio nic read ing ha ve be en qui te diffe rent fr om one te am mem ber t o anot her. Whi le f or so me t he met hod h as pro ven t o b e a refre shing exper ience th at allo wed th em t o foc us bet ter o n t he tex ts a nd g o thro ugh th em quic ker, oth ers compl ained th at t he proc ess w as rat her tir ing a nd th at t he bol ded lett ers we re qui te distra cting.

Wh at d o y ou thi nk? I s bio nic read ing a go od to ol f or fa st read ing o r i s i t t oo distra cting?

Is Bionic Reading the Same as Speed Reading?

No. Speed reading is a reading method or strategy that encapsulates a series of different techniques to increase the speed at which reading is done. Bionic reading, while no hard evidence exists to support that, is a reading technique that can lead to reading quicker. So, if you will, bionic reading can be, at best, if the claims are going to be proven through studies, a speed reading technique.

Final thoughts

Getting started with bionic reading is not going to be much of a challenge. The apps available at the moment will allow you to easily convert regular text into bionic reading text. The challenge is going to be figuring out if it really helps or not. Use Basmo to measure your reading speed and see if bionic reading works well for you.

Ready for the world’s first AI Chatbot for books? Start a chat with any book!

Get Basmo to experience the power of ChatGPT!

Image by vectorjuice on Freepik

Related Posts

How to Develop a Reading Habit and Why Should You?

The Best Reading Journal Ideas You Should Know Today

28 Benefits of Reading Books You Should Be Aware Of

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The only AI chatbot for books in the world!

Instantly learn anything from any book with ChatGPT

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

As he lay buried —

Deciphered herculaneum papyrus reveals precise burial place of plato, various imaging methods comprised a kind of "bionic eye" to examine charred scroll..

Jennifer Ouellette - Apr 25, 2024 5:33 pm UTC

Historical accounts vary about how the Greek philosopher Plato died: in bed while listening to a young woman playing the flute; at a wedding feast; or peacefully in his sleep. But the few surviving texts from that period indicate that the philosopher was buried somewhere in the garden of the Academy he founded in Athens. The garden was quite large, but archaeologists have now deciphered a charred ancient papyrus scroll recovered from the ruins of Herculaneum, indicating a more precise burial location: in a private area near a sacred shrine to the Muses, according to Constanza Millani , director of the Institute of Heritage Science at Italy's National Research Council.

As previously reported , the ancient Roman resort town Pompeii wasn't the only city destroyed in the catastrophic 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius . Several other cities in the area, including the wealthy enclave of Herculaneum, were fried by clouds of hot gas called pyroclastic pulses and flows. But still, some remnants of Roman wealth survived. One palatial residence in Herculaneum—believed to have once belonged to a man named Piso—contained hundreds of priceless written scrolls made from papyrus, singed into carbon by volcanic gas.

The scrolls stayed buried under volcanic mud until they were excavated in the 1700s from a single room that archaeologists believe held the personal working library of an Epicurean philosopher named Philodemus. There may be even more scrolls still buried on the as-yet-unexcavated lower floors of the villa. The few opened fragments helped scholars identify various Greek philosophical texts, including On Nature by Epicurus and several by Philodemus himself, as well as a handful of Latin works. But the more than 600 rolled-up scrolls were so fragile that it was long believed they would never be readable, since even touching them could cause them to crumble.

Further Reading

Scientists have brought all manner of cutting-edge tools to bear on deciphering badly damaged ancient texts like the Herculaneum scrolls. For instance, in 2019, German scientists used a combination of physics techniques (synchrotron radiation, infrared spectroscopy, and X-ray fluorescence) to virtually "unfold" an ancient Egyptian papyrus.

Brent Seales' lab at the University of Kentucky has been working on deciphering the Herculaneum scrolls for many years. He employs a different method of "virtually unrolling" damaged scrolls, using digital scanning with micro-computed tomography—a noninvasive technique often used for cancer imaging—with segmentation to digitally create pages, augmented with texturing and flattening techniques. Then they developed software ( Volume Cartography ) to virtually unroll the scroll.

The older Herculaneum scrolls were written with carbon-based ink (charcoal and water), so one would not get the same fluorescing in the CT scans, but the scans can still capture minute textural differences indicating those areas of papyrus that contained ink compared to the blank areas, and it's possible to train an artificial neural network to do just that.

This latest work is under the auspices of the "GreekSchools" project, funded by the European Research Council, which began three years ago and will continue through 2026. This time around, scholars have used infrared, ultraviolet optical imaging, thermal imaging, tomography, and digital optical microscopy as a kind of "bionic eye" to examine Philodemus' History of the Academy scroll, which was also written in carbon-based ink. Nonetheless, they were able to extract over 1,000 words, approximately 30 percent of the scroll's text, revealing new details about Plato's life as well as his place of burial.

Most notably, the historical account of Plato being sold into slavery in his later years after running afoul of the tyrannical Dionysius is usually pegged to around 387 BCE. According to the newly deciphered Philodemus text, however, Plato's enslavement may have occurred as early as 404 BCE or shortly after the death of Socrates in 399 BCE.

"Compared to previous editions, there is now an almost radically changed text, which implies a series of new and concrete facts about various academic philosophers," Graziano Ranocchia, lead researcher on the project, said . "Through the new edition and its contextualization, scholars have arrived at unexpected interdisciplinary deductions for ancient philosophy, Greek biography and literature, and the history of the book.”

Other deciphering efforts are also still underway. For instance, last fall we reported on the use of machine learning to decipher the first letters from a previously unreadable ancient scroll found in an ancient Roman villa at Herculaneum—part of the 2023 Vesuvius Challenge. And earlier this year tech entrepreneur and challenge co-founder Nat Friedman announced via X (formerly Twitter) that they had awarded the grand prize of $700,000 for producing the first readable text.

When the Vesuvius Challenge co-founders started the challenge, they thought there was less than a 30 percent chance of success within the year since, at the time, no one had been able to read actual letters inside of a scroll. However, the crowdsourcing approach proved wildly successful. That said, it's still just 5 percent of a single scroll.

So there is a new challenge for 2024: $100,000 for the first entry that can read 90 percent of the four scrolls scanned thus far. The primary goal is to perfect the auto-segmentation process since doing so manually is both time-consuming and expensive (more than $100 per square centimeter). This will lay the foundation for one day being able to scan and read all 800 scrolls discovered so far, as well as any additional scrolls that are unearthed should the remaining levels of the villa finally be excavated.

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

Frequently Ask Questions.

Registration.

Why does my registration not work all the time?

NOTE: It’s very important that your login method remains consistent . Your initial registration is crucial  and is then applicable for all other App logins .

So it’s either → “Sign in with email” or → “Sign in with Google” or → “Sign in with Apple”

If you encounter issues with the login/upgrade, kindly follow these steps: → Please delete all Bionic Reading® Apps. → Log in to our Bionic Reading® Web App (Get App:  https://reader.bionic-reading.com/ ) using your login. → Now you can download all other Apps . → Log in once  with your chosen login method ,  and it should work correctly .

Subscriptions.

Can I use Bionic Reading® for free?

Yes, if you choose the “Discover” subscription. Ideal to get to know Bionic Reading®. You don’t have to register for this subscription, but you have limited options. You can find more informations about our products here: BR Pricing .

Do I pay one price and can use all 6 Bionic Reading® Apps?

Yes, you only need one account to use all 6 Bionic Reading® Apps. After that you can use Bionic Reading® on your Smartphone, Tablet, Notebook, Laptop and Desktop Computer.

What is the difference between the subscription “Premium” and “Premium Plus”?

With the subscription “Premium Plus” you have full access to all options we offer. You can upload a number of files, read them in the “BR Reader” and then save them as a favorite in your “BR Library”. With the subscription “Premium” the options are limited. However, you can upgrade at any time. Go to your “Profile” and select your new subscription.

Can I switch subscriptions from monthly to yearly, or yearly to monthly?

It’s not possible to switch from an annually to a monthly subscription until the annual subscription has ended. However, you can switch from a monthly to an annual subscription as soon as the current month ends.

How do I manage or cancel my Bionic Reading® subscription?

NOTE: You can manage your subscription in the Bionic Reading® Web App, Apple iOS Settings, or Google Android Settings. It depends on where you purchased your subscription. In the Web App, in the Apple App Store, or in the Google Play Store.

Bionic Reading® Web App Open the → “ Bionic Reading® Web App ” or press the button → “Get App” on our website.  Choose the → “Profil Icon”.  Here you can manage your subscription. If you then click on → “Manage Subscription”, you will be redirected to the “Stripe” page.  Here you can manage your current subscription.

Bionic Reading® iOS App Here you can find the information: Apple Support

Bionic Reading® Android App Here you can find the information: Google Play Support

Will my subscription be renewed automatically?

Yes, as usual with subscriptions for software products, also Bionic Reading® subscriptions are automatically renewed. It ’ s up to you to cancel your subscription in time, which we would of course regret very much.

Why is my subscription still active even though I’ve already canceled it?

The term or access to your subscription will not be shortened if you cancel it before it expires. You can still use the Bionic Reading® Apps until the end of the subscription period. However, if your subscription is still active after the end of the term, it can only be because you have several subscriptions with different e-mail addresses and you did n’t cancel all of them before they expired.

Why am I not getting a refund?

It ’ s your decision to purchase one of our subscriptions. Your credit card will only be charged when you have decided to make the purchase. That ’ s why the Bionic Reading AG doesn ’t guarantee refunds. However, so that you don ’ t have to buy “ a pig in a poke ” , we offer you the free version “ Discover ” or the very inexpensive subscription “ Premium ” , with which you can also test various features.

Can I read my eBooks from beginning to end in the Bionic Reading® Apps?

Yes, with our “BR Reader” you can read all ebooks (DRM free) on the device of your choice with our Bionic Reading® Apps. You need at least the subscription “Premium”.

How does the Bionic Reading® Library work?

For the “BR Library” you need the subscription “Premium” or “Premium Plus”. All content added to the Bionic Reading® Apps will be listed in your library. On the first screen of the “BR Library” you can always see your last three added contents. To the right, they are grouped into “Text”, “File” and “Website”. You also have the option of marking the favorites with a “heart”.

How many characters can I convert in the text field?

The text conversion depends on whether you use the free version “Discover” or whether you have a subscription “Premium” or “Premium Plus”. With the free version “Discover” you can convert up to 2000 characters. With the subscription “Premium” you have 5000 characters available and with the “Premium Plus” the number of characters is unlimited.

Which features are supported in the Bionic Reading® Apps?

It depends on which subscription you have chosen. You can find more information here: BR Pricing.

Why do I need an internet connection?

Your content is processed by our servers. Therefore, you need an internet connection when using the Bionic Reading® Apps.

Do I have to wait until the download is completed?

Yes, it ’s essential that you leave the app open until the download is completed. If you close the app anyway during the conversion or disconnect from the Internet, this download will be counted and deducted from your subscription.

Can I write a book and sell it with the reading method Bionic Reading®?

For this you need a Bionic Reading® IP Licensing. Ideally, you should contact your publisher for this. If you are a self-publisher, you can send us your request via the contact form. Therefore visit the site “BR for Suppliers”.

Can I sell my converted texts, files and ebooks to third parties?

No. The Intellectual Property of Bionic Reading® is based on  Patent, Trademark and Copyright Rights. You can find more detailed information in the EULA. Therefore visit the site “End User License Agreement” at the bottom of our website.

Amazon® Kindle.

Why can I not convert some ebooks to Bionic Reading®?

We can only process ebooks and files that do not have a file protection. For example, Amazon® Kindle ebooks have a DRM protection (DigitalRightsManagement). Therefore, we can not process and convert these ebooks. Sorry.

How can I send a converted file from Bionic Reading® to my Amazon® Kindle?

Visit the Amazon® website → To the right of the search box, go to → “Account and Lists” and click on → “Manage your content and devices”. Then go to the → “Preferences” menu and click on → “Personal Document Settings”. Now you can add your Amazon® Kindle e-mail to your → “Approved personal documents e-mail list”. Under → “Send-to-Kindle e-mail Settings” you’ll find the e-mail address of your Amazon® Kindle. → Copy and paste this in the Bionic Reading® App field → “Your Amazon® Kindle e-mail” and press → “send”. That’s it.

File formats.

What file formats can I upload and convert with the Bionic Reading® Apps?

Currently you can upload and convert the following file formats: .docx, .txt, .rtf and .epub. Unfortunately, we cannot upload and convert eBooks with a DRM protection (e.g. eBooks from Amazon® Kindle) or process PDF files.

Why isn’t it possible to upload a PDFile and convert it to Bionic Reading®?

The PDF file can have a very complex formatting. For this reason we can not offer you this function. Sorry. A simple page layout in PDF file format is certainly editable. But as soon as it has a complex structure, a conversion is problematic. Downloading your text content as PDF file is of course no problem.

Why isn’t my file converted correctly?

Unfortunately, not all files are optimally processed. There are a lot of “hidden” co de characters in a document which affect the conversion. Especially when converting from a PDF file to a Word file that was created by an external PDF converter.

Why do I get an error message when converting a file?

If the file size increases significantly after converting to Bionic Reading®, the file cannot be converted. Keep in mind that a download as a PDF file tends to result in a larger file size than a download as an EPUB file.

Why do I get an error message when converting a website?

It ’s possible that you haven ’t confirmed the Coockie settings. It ’s important that you accept these settings, otherwise we will not be able to display the desired website correctly.

Why isn’t it possible to convert all websites to Bionic Reading®?

Unfortunately, not every website is structured in such a way that we can process it. In the case of a complex website, we may not be able to extract the content. Also make sure that your Coockie settings are correctly.

Does the Bionic Reading® reading method work with all languages worldwide?

Our reading method supports all languages that have their origin in the Latin alphabet. The official languages of the most countries in the world are based on the Latin alphabet and are represented on all seven continents.

What languages are supported in the Bionic Reading® Apps?

Currently we support the languages English and German. In the future we would like to support more languages.

Development.

Is Bionic Reading® also helpful for children, teenagers and young adults?

Parents and grandparents have written to us, sharing that they have shown Bionic Reading® to their children, and it has been very helpful. Conversely, children, teenagers, and young adults have approached their parents, expressing that Bionic Reading® has been of great assistance to them as well. This comes as no surprise considering that negative reading skills and reading difficulties among children and teenagers have been on the rise for some time, and the trend is continuing upwards. When applied correctly, our reading method can be beneficial both in digital and analog formats. 

Is the company Bionic Reading AG interested in research on the reading method Bionic Reading®?

A research approach would involve a targeted selection of participants with conditions or disorders such as ADHD or dyslexia. We at Bionic Reading AG are confident that the Bionic Reading® method will provide a significant value for such a test group. With the right research partner (organizations for ADHD/dyslexia-affected individuals) and financial support, it is possible to validate the highly positive reactions from communities on social media through conclusive research data .

Is the payment system secure?

Yes, payment is made through the Stripe payment platform or through the payment systems of the various app store providers. We at Bionic Reading AG do not store any information about your credit card. You can find more information about Stripe here: stripe.com 

Is my data stored securely?

We take data security very seriously. Your data and documents are stored on our servers according to the highest security standards and are not passed on to third parties. Your personal data will be stored and used exclusively for the processing of subscriptions and contacting you. We don’t look at your text content.

Bionic Reading® Support.

World Economic Forum → Movie

Royal College of Art → LinkedIn Post

German Design Award → Gold Award

The Huffington Post → Article

TikTok → 882+ Mio. Results

Are you sure that your question has not already been answered in FAQ? Additionally, you can find answers and many explanations for most of your questions on our website. If not, please contact us with detailed information (screenshots, movies, etc.). And please remember, you’re writing to a Bionic Reading® employee, not a bot. Thank you.

→ Your detailed request

Bionic Reading® allows your eyes to “skip” over the words and text. Similar to a surfboard that only glides on the tip of the waves.

We offer a free version and the possibility for upgrades.