# Does Speed Reading Work? What the Research Says

> Speed-reading training can raise your speed, but comprehension usually drops. What the studies show, which claims are myths, and when reading fast really helps.

Page: https://speedreadingo.fastemy.com/guides/does-speed-reading-work/ · Updated: 2026-11-02 · By: Abdullah Yılmaz · Speed Readingo

## The short answer

Only partly. Training can make you read faster, but comprehension usually drops as speed rises. In studies reviewed by Rayner and colleagues (2016), trained speed readers at about 600 to 700 words per minute did no better on detail questions than people told to skim. Speed reading works for getting the gist, not for detail.

## What the biggest review found

In 2016, five reading scientists led by Keith Rayner reviewed decades of research on eye movements, word recognition, comprehension and speed-reading courses ([Rayner et al., 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623267)). Their verdict was calm and clear. Reading involves a trade-off between speed and accuracy: when you go faster, you understand less. Doubling or tripling your speed, from around 250 to 500–750 words per minute, while understanding as much as before is unlikely. The gains that last come from reading practice and language skill, such as a bigger vocabulary.

## What the studies show

- **A speed-reading class** raised adults' speed from about 280 to 400 words per minute, while their comprehension fell from 81% to 74%.
- **Graduates of a well-known course** read far faster than untrained people, but on non-fiction they scored 68% against 72%. People who never saw the passage at all scored 57%.
- **Trained speed readers** at 600–700 words per minute matched people told to skim on detail questions, and lost their edge on unfamiliar technical articles.
- **Two graduates** "read" a college textbook in under six minutes, three times over, and understood little. The researchers put the feat down to skill at turning pages.

All four studies are summarised in the 2016 review. In a separate test of self-described fast readers, comprehension dropped sharply above about 600 words per minute ([Carver, 1985](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ319724)).

## Myths and evidence

| Claim | What the evidence says | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Read 1,000+ words a minute with full comprehension | Comprehension drops sharply past about 600 words per minute (Carver, 1985) | False |
| Triple your reading speed | Doubling or tripling with the same understanding is unlikely (Rayner et al., 2016) | Not supported |
| Silence your inner voice | Blocking inner speech hurts comprehension of harder text (Rayner et al., 2016) | False |
| Take in a whole line or page at a glance | You identify words only near where you look, and nothing comes from the lines above or below (Rayner et al., 2016) | False |
| Never go back | Look-backs on 10–15% of eye movements are normal ([Rayner, 2009](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461)), and blocking them lowers comprehension ([Schotter et al., 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531148)) | False |
| Word-by-word apps let you read 700+ words a minute without loss | At 700 and 1,000 words per minute, normal text beat word-by-word display on comprehension ([Acklin & Papesh, 2017](https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.2.0183)); at normal rates, one app gave no speed gain and more eye fatigue ([Benedetto et al., 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.043)) | False |
| PhotoReading at 25,000 words a minute | A NASA-funded test found no gain in speed and lower comprehension ([McNamara, 2000](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20000011599)) | False |
| Schulte tables speed up reading | Researchers use the grid to measure attention; in a 9-week trial, a similar grid exercise improved concentration no more than no training did ([Greenlees et al., 2006](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.02.001)) | Unproven |

## What speed reading is good for

- **Getting the gist.** When you only need the main idea, skimming is two to four times faster than reading. Under time pressure, skimming a whole text caught more of its important ideas than reading only half of it, though it did not help with details ([Duggan & Payne, 2009](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016995)).
- **Triage.** Search results, long email threads and background chapters: a fast first pass tells you what deserves a careful read.
- **Getting past a slow habit.** Adults read aloud at about 183 words per minute and silently at about 238 ([Brysbaert, 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047)). If your silent pace sits near your speaking pace, practising a little faster than comfortable can lift it. Keep an eye on comprehension as you do.

## What it is not good for

Detail. Contracts, data, instructions and exam questions about specifics need normal reading, with look-backs. The same goes for unfamiliar technical material, where trained speed readers lost their advantage. Above roughly 600 words per minute you are skimming, whatever a course calls it.

The course behind Speed Readingo trains at paces from 250 up to 1,000 words per minute. Treat these as practice paces, like lifting a heavier weight in the gym, not as speeds at which you will catch every detail. As the course puts it, think of speed reading as a separate skill, not a replacement for careful reading.

## How Speed Readingo approaches it

We built Speed Readingo around one rule from this research: speed only counts when the meaning comes with it. The [reading speed test](https://speedreadingo.fastemy.com/reading-speed-test/) on this site shows your words per minute next to the share of questions you got right, and a result under 70% correct does not count as a reading rate. That is the cut-off a classic study of more than 12,000 readers used (Brysbaert, 2019).

The app works the same way: speed plus a comprehension check, every time. Its drills push your pace, and the questions tell you whether the meaning kept up. The [Schulte table](https://speedreadingo.fastemy.com/schulte-table/) is there as an attention game; we do not claim it speeds up reading.

## Try it

Take the [reading speed test](https://speedreadingo.fastemy.com/reading-speed-test/) at your normal pace. Then take it again on the other passage, this time pushing your speed, and compare both numbers: speed and comprehension. If your comprehension holds, the faster pace is real. If it falls below 70%, you have found your skimming speed.

Next: [how to read faster without losing the meaning](https://speedreadingo.fastemy.com/guides/how-to-read-faster/).

## FAQ

### Is speed reading a myth?

Not entirely. You can learn to read somewhat faster and to skim well, but claims of 1,000 words per minute or more with full comprehension have not survived testing (Rayner et al., 2016). Expect a trade-off between speed and understanding.

### Do speed reading apps work?

As practice, they can help. As a way to read, the evidence is weak: at 700 and 1,000 words per minute, people understood normal text better than word-by-word app text (Acklin & Papesh, 2017), and a study of one such app found no speed gain over paper at normal rates, plus more eye fatigue (Benedetto et al., 2015).

### Can you read 1,000 words per minute?

You can move through text that fast, but not with good comprehension. When self-described speed readers were tested, comprehension dropped sharply above about 600 words per minute (Carver, 1985), and two course graduates who covered a textbook in under six minutes understood little of it (Rayner et al., 2016).

## Sources

1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623267
2. Carver, R. P. (1985). How good are some of the world’s best readers?. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 389–419. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ319724
3. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461
4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531148
5. Acklin, D., & Papesh, M. H. (2017). Modern speed-reading apps do not foster reading comprehension. American Journal of Psychology, 130(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.2.0183
6. Benedetto, S., Carbone, A., Pedrotti, M., Le Fevre, K., Bey, L. A. Y., & Baccino, T. (2015). Rapid serial visual presentation in reading: The case of Spritz. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.043
7. McNamara, D. S. (2000). Preliminary analysis of PhotoReading. NASA Ames Research Center (report NAG2-1319). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20000011599
8. Greenlees, I., Thelwell, R., & Holder, T. (2006). Examining the efficacy of the concentration grid exercise as a concentration enhancement exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.02.001
9. Duggan, G. B., & Payne, S. J. (2009). Text skimming: The process and effectiveness of foraging through text under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016995
10. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047