I'd like to throw in an idea to consider.
The discussion thread regarding the benefits of the PhotoReading whole mind system needs to be separated from the the discussion of testing the PhotoReading step itself. Here's why:
The course is designed to load the participant with a MEGA dose of interventions in one's reading pattern. Posture alone has shown to influence reading speed and comprehension. One's positive internal dialog regarding comprehension has shown to improve comprehension significantly. In fact, every component of the program is used because of it's benefit. Name it: establish purpose, establish state, preview, rhythmic perusal, etc, etc, etc...they all have one intent; intervene in a person's reading process to offer better options, that use multiple intelligences and more of the whole mind.
In that regard, there is nothing contained in SQ3R that isn't reproduced in some fashion in the PhotoReading whole mind system.
My contention is that the PhotoReading step is THE paradigm shift to a new way of processing vast amounts of written data in less time. The paradigm shifts because the very act of PhotoReading affirms two things:
1) I have a preconscious processor
2) I have nonconscious resources that can serve me in acquiring information at a conscious level
It follows that it would be fruitless to PhotoRead and deny 1 & 2. So the operating presupposition of the course rests on research that indicates both 1 & 2 are true for anyone.
Now, how about testing the efficacy of the PhotoReading step?
There are plenty of good ideas on how to do that. Unfortunately AdamP's is not one. Any PhotoReader who picks up a book is going to know by feel of pages, images of the structure of pages, chapters, characters, bolds, etc. that one book is different than another. There is NO WAY that a graduate of PhotoReading could be deceived into activating a book that they didn't PhotoRead.
In fact, for years we covered up books and PhotoRead them upside down and backwards. The affective impact of the experience was so dramatic that most of the class participants could immediately distinguish between the books purely on the basis of emotional content.
Hence, the design of AdamPs experiment is poor.
As to the IBVA...you can find out more about the technology at www.IBVA.com
I don't think it proves PhotoReading. We are intrigued by the fact that all PhotoReaders show a similar brainwave signature when hooked up to the machine. We found it was not an Alpha state, but a state characterized by increased amplitudes in low Beta and high Theta frequencies. Additionally, it was fascinating to find that the major driver of the signature was the PhotoFocus state, not the physical relaxation of the PhotoReader.