4 ms·

Linked at the end of the article is the short (15 minutes maybe) self-test: https://speed.readwise.io/ https://speed.readwise.io/. Curious what results people

Linked at the end of the article is the short (15 minutes maybe) self-test: https://speed.readwise.io/ https://speed.readwise.io/. Curious what results people here got. I got 23% faster with BR but I couldn't tell if I was just trying harder.

Izkata 4y ago
I got 1% faster with Literata (385 vs 390). Bionic made my eyes stutter so much I just didn't like reading it either.
bejd 4y ago
Also 23% faster with BR but I enjoyed reading that way less. As with yourself, I suspect that maybe I put pressure on myself to read faster for the BR. As the article says, a better comparison may be to have a fake version of BR as the control.
BrightOne 4y ago
23% faster with BR as well. 528 vs 419 WPM. Made a point about feeling comfortable while reading.
lkxijlewlf 4y ago
I was a mere 2% faster. 404 vs 396 WPM. Edit: 2% faster with BR.
hoodwink 4y ago
we'll definitely make a follow up post once we've gathered enough data here! hopefully in a week or so :) (my results were 2% faster with BR)
- ACow_Adonis 4y ago
  have you considered implementing a false control (i.e. putting in a badly implemented bionic reading version and serving that to a random number of people to see whether people also report speed increases with "bad bionic reading"?) i know a significant number of people here are probably already familiar with what bionic reading is, but still, could be an interesting control.
  - hoodwink 4y ago
    yeah i acknowledged that in the experiment design discussion > We recognize this is clearly not a gold standard, double-blind RCT. Researcher and participant alike knew what Bionic Reading claims to achieve. We simply did not have time to (1) develop a mock Bionic Reading placebo that, for example, might bold the middle of the word instead of the beginning and/or (2) find a set of test subjects who are blissfully offline and unaware of this viral sensation. That said, we controlled for what we could and we think we've already gathered some fairly compelling evidence.
ianferrel 4y ago
I got 15% faster with the non-BR font. I was trying to do the same amount on each.
gcheong 4y ago
12% faster with Literata.
brendoelfrendo 4y ago
I was 15% faster with Bionic reading, but I noticed that my comprehension suffered somewhat. I still got all the review questions right, but I sometimes had to re-read sentences or phrases and didn't have that problem as much with the normal text. My assumption is that I'm able to scan the words better with BR, but my eye gets pulled along too fast and I'm reading without comprehending.
blep_ 4y ago
I was 17% faster with Literata. I can't tell whether I was intentionally going faster because I had preconceived negative opinions about BR. It's a possibility.
memorable 4y ago
15% faster with Literata (381 WPM with BR vs 442 WPM with Literata). Not sure if that's accurate since I'm a bit impatient at the BR part.
fourthark 4y ago
18% faster with Literata

Izkata 4y ago

I got 1% faster with Literata (385 vs 390). Bionic made my eyes stutter so much I just didn't like reading it either.

bejd 4y ago

Also 23% faster with BR but I enjoyed reading that way less. As with yourself, I suspect that maybe I put pressure on myself to read faster for the BR. As the article says, a better comparison may be to have a fake version of BR as the control.

BrightOne 4y ago

23% faster with BR as well. 528 vs 419 WPM. Made a point about feeling comfortable while reading.

lkxijlewlf 4y ago

I was a mere 2% faster. 404 vs 396 WPM. Edit: 2% faster with BR.

hoodwink 4y ago

we'll definitely make a follow up post once we've gathered enough data here! hopefully in a week or so :) (my results were 2% faster with BR)

ACow_Adonis 4y ago
have you considered implementing a false control (i.e. putting in a badly implemented bionic reading version and serving that to a random number of people to see whether people also report speed increases with "bad bionic reading"?) i know a significant number of people here are probably already familiar with what bionic reading is, but still, could be an interesting control.
- hoodwink 4y ago
  yeah i acknowledged that in the experiment design discussion > We recognize this is clearly not a gold standard, double-blind RCT. Researcher and participant alike knew what Bionic Reading claims to achieve. We simply did not have time to (1) develop a mock Bionic Reading placebo that, for example, might bold the middle of the word instead of the beginning and/or (2) find a set of test subjects who are blissfully offline and unaware of this viral sensation. That said, we controlled for what we could and we think we've already gathered some fairly compelling evidence.

ianferrel 4y ago

I got 15% faster with the non-BR font. I was trying to do the same amount on each.

gcheong 4y ago

12% faster with Literata.

brendoelfrendo 4y ago

I was 15% faster with Bionic reading, but I noticed that my comprehension suffered somewhat. I still got all the review questions right, but I sometimes had to re-read sentences or phrases and didn't have that problem as much with the normal text. My assumption is that I'm able to scan the words better with BR, but my eye gets pulled along too fast and I'm reading without comprehending.

blep_ 4y ago

I was 17% faster with Literata. I can't tell whether I was intentionally going faster because I had preconceived negative opinions about BR. It's a possibility.

memorable 4y ago

15% faster with Literata (381 WPM with BR vs 442 WPM with Literata). Not sure if that's accurate since I'm a bit impatient at the BR part.

fourthark 4y ago

18% faster with Literata