Ok, I can't photoread. I just read fast and voraciously. But I'm gonna bite into this argument. It just screams Psudoscience to me and demands rebuttal. But with substitution(my personal litmus test.)

Say there is an infomercial. On it is this great martial artist. Say Bruce lee. He does a demo where he breaks 5 wooden boards with one strike. He says, "you can learn to break up to 5 boards just like me. Just buy my video tapes and books for $250." The infomerical also mentions that in addition to eventually learning to break up to 5 boards with one blow, you will notice an imediate improvement in your health and confidence. And they guarantee that you will see an improvement or your money back. Blah, blah.

Now lets apply your scientific test to the bruce lee board breaking tapes.
------------------substitution begins
A control group is established for people who have no experience with Fighting, Boxing, or any other Martial Art system.

A group which has had 1 month of Boxing within the previous 1-2 weeks of the test.

A group which has had 1 month of Tae Kwon Do practice within the previous 1-2 weeks of the test.

The main test will consist of a number of boards in parallel. The subjects will each make an attempt to break them with thier right or left hand.

All subjects will be given 15 minutes to relax before the test and prepare.

The test will be carefully monitored and all test groups will be given the estimated time that their group should have for their ability.

Example, the control group will be given 2 boards to break, Boxers will be given 3 boards to break, and the Tae Kwon DO group will be given 4 boards to break.

The subjects will not be able to refer back to their instruction books during the test portion of the test but will know the procedure. All groups will be given basic hints on the type of Moves that may be applied.


Test will be given to measure How many boards are broken. They may try again 5 minuts later, 30 minutes later, adn 24 hours later.

I think this would be a nice study and encourage anyone/someone to try it. Also, if certain photoreaders do better then others then I'd encourage more test of the subjects to determine any differences.

Well.. any researcher want to try something like this?
-------------------------------end mod
Just to make sure my point wasn't lost in the analogy I will speak it directly.
The infomercial like in any demonstration involves people with years of practice.

If you applied the subsituted version of your test, you would resoundingly PROVE to many people who do not understand the scientific method, that testing beginners in an advanced technique is fruitless.

You haven't proven anything with either test(except maybe hitting a board is painful and can break things other than the board). All you've proven is that until an advanced techinque is mastered you have two choices: Give up and do it the old way, or stick with it and practice. The advantages of doing it the old way:a) You already know how to do it. b)You already are familiar with all of its advantages and disadvantages and can compensate for some of them. When learning a new skill (especially a new way of doing an old thing, say martial arts instead of street fighting, ballet instead of squaredancing), there are some resounding disadvantages;especially if they involve UNLEARNING a previous skill. a)A period of incompetence. You skill level all around sufferes. For a good while you KNOW your ability using your old skill is more effective than your current level in your new skill. Getting your Tae Kwon Do better than your Streetfighting, or your Ballet better than your Squaredancing, will take considerable time and practice. But if you stick with it, you might have the skill to survive that fight, or the skill to join the dance troupe and get a contract. Expecting results from a book isn't unreasonable. Expecting to be as good as the 'Expert' in any demonstration after only a few weeks or months IS.

Just so my point wasn't lost again. The reason I call it psudoscience is it compares apples to oranges. An experienced reader vs gross beginners. If you realy wan't a scientific test Make it apples vs apples. say at least 10; 5 year experienced readers (8th grader possibly, but I really don't think it would hurt using a normal adult ) vs. 5 year experienced speed reader, vs. a 5 year photoreader. Give them all the same equipment. A book, and the time they require.
I'e. The photoreading isn't just glancing at pages, he needs to be allowed to perform all phases of the process, including mapping and dipping. Speed reading probably has it's own techniques. Even normal reading usually involves rereading passages, cross referencing and other techinques. Allow each person to take as much time as they feel comfortable with. Don't limit anyones time, but do time each person.

At the end administer the comprehension test. Then you can graph or average the results. Average the time of each group and average the comprehension level of each group. .
Another way to compare scores is only compare the times of people with similar comprehension scores. Give it a degree of error based on those who's score were out of line.
And That would give a result that has at least SOME scientific value. Not that I'm accusing you of deliberatly using psudoscience. But it is.

Thank you,
Rykk