Speed reading apps promise a lot: read a book in an afternoon, double or triple your words per minute. We are building one, Flincth Speed Reader, so we owe you a straight answer to the question people search for most: do they work?
The short version: they make you faster, and the faster you go, the more you lose. How much you lose depends on what you read and how the app shows it.
How these apps work
Most speed reading apps use RSVP, rapid serial visual presentation. Instead of a page, you see one word (or a few) at a time in a fixed spot, replaced at a pace you set in words per minute.
The idea is to remove the work your eyes normally do. When you read a page, your eyes jump from point to point, rest briefly, and sometimes jump back. RSVP keeps them still and moves the text instead.
What the research found
Reading scientists have studied this for decades, and their findings point the same way.
Speed and understanding trade off. A major review of speed reading research by Keith Rayner, Elizabeth Schotter and colleagues (Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2016) found no shortcut around this: as people read faster, they understand less. There is no technique that lets you take in a dense text at several times your normal speed without giving something up.
Looking back matters. In ordinary reading, a share of eye movements go backwards to re-read a word or phrase. A study by Schotter, Tran and Rayner (Psychological Science, 2014) found that when readers couldn’t look back, their comprehension of tricky sentences dropped. RSVP removes exactly this: once a word has gone, it’s gone.
Apps specifically. Acklin and Papesh (American Journal of Psychology, 2017) compared reading on the page with RSVP-style apps and found comprehension was better on the page than with either RSVP condition. Within RSVP, slower speeds helped people recall exact details.
None of this says RSVP is useless. It says the trade-off is real, and claims of reading at 1,000 words per minute with full understanding don’t hold up.
Where speed reading apps help
Used with that trade-off in mind, they are useful for:
- Getting through easy text. Articles, newsletters and familiar topics, where missing a detail costs little.
- A first pass. Skimming a long report to decide which parts deserve a slow read.
- Keeping focus. Some readers find that a steady pace keeps them from drifting, especially on a phone.
- Small screens. One word at a time in large type is easier on a phone than a dense page.
They are a poor fit for textbooks, contracts, technical documents and anything you need to remember precisely.
How we’re designing around it
The research shaped Flincth Speed Reader more than any feature list:
- Phrases and short sentences, not only single words. Seeing a meaningful group of words at once keeps more of the sense, which is why the app offers phrase and sentence modes besides one word at a time.
- Natural pauses. The pace slows at commas and full stops and gives long words a little more time.
- A way to look back. Pause at any moment to see the whole paragraph you are in, and tap any sentence to carry on from there. Opening a book again resumes a few words before where you stopped.
- Your pace, not ours. You set the words per minute, and nothing pushes you to go faster.
That doesn’t beat the research; nothing does. It aims for a pace where you are faster than usual and still understand.
The honest answer
Speed reading apps work for reading faster. They don’t work for reading faster and understanding everything. Start at a comfortable pace, a little above your normal speed, use them for the right kind of text, and slow down when it matters.
Sources
- 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.
- Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1218–1226.
- Acklin, D., & Papesh, M. H. (2017). Modern speed-reading apps do not foster reading comprehension. American Journal of Psychology, 130(2), 183–199.