Claim

Raw speed without held understanding is not reading skill.

What the eye science says

Decades of eye-movement work show that skilled reading is not a race against the clock. Readers who push pace without protecting meaning trade away the very signal that makes the text useful — the ability to answer for what they just read. Rate and understanding move together; either alone is an incomplete picture of skill. Public claims that treat raw words-per-minute as proof of mastery routinely fail when comprehension is measured with the same seriousness as speed.

Primary cite

Rayner et al. 2016 — Psychological Science in the Public Interest

What SPEED/READ does

We score effective WPM: raw pace multiplied by quiz accuracy, and only sessions that clear an ≥80% comprehension gate count toward the number we save and show. Training pushes you to go faster while the quiz holds — not to inflate a vanity readout. Adult professionals get a number they can defend in real work, not a gym-wall brag.

What we refuse to claim

We do not promise 3× gains, full comprehension at 1000 WPM, or any headline that treats raw WPM as the product. If the quiz fails, the pace does not count.

Claim

Reading is brief landings and purposeful jumps — not a myth about subvocalization.

What the eye science says

The eye does not glide. It fixates for a few hundred milliseconds, then saccades to the next useful landing. When meaning slips, readers regress — looking back to re-check a word or clause. That control loop is how comprehension is maintained under time pressure, not a defect to be trained away with slogans. Skilled adult readers already own this rhythm; training should respect it rather than pretend the eye can absorb a page at once.

Primary cite

Schotter, Tran & Rayner 2014 — Psychological Science

What SPEED/READ does

RSVP and guided current-word emphasis give the eye a clean fixation target and a steady rhythm. We are training that landing-and-jump pattern against adult professional text — then checking that meaning survived with a quiz, not with folklore about “stopping the inner voice.” The product measure remains effective WPM, so a smoother rhythm that drops the quiz still does not count.

What we refuse to claim

We do not sell 3× miracles, full comprehension at 1000 WPM, or raw WPM as the hero metric. Regressions that save meaning are allowed; vanity pace that skips the quiz is not.

Claim

Effective WPM = raw WPM × quiz % — saved only when the gate holds.

What the eye science says

RSVP and other paced presentations can raise measured rate, but the literature is clear that comprehension often trades off as presentation gets more aggressive. An honest product number has to carry both sides of that tradeoff — pace and the quiz — rather than celebrating the side that looks impressive in isolation. When the quiz is ignored, the reported “speed” becomes a different quantity from reading skill.

Primary cite

Acklin & Papesh 2017 — The American Journal of Psychology

What SPEED/READ does

Method is simple and public: multiply raw WPM by quiz accuracy, require ≥80% to pass the gate, and persist effective only. Example: 400 WPM at 80% = 320 effective. That is the curve on the board, the baseline, and the number adult professionals actually use. Sessions below the gate are practice feedback, not saved score.

What we refuse to claim

No 3× guarantees. No “full comprehension at 1000 WPM.” No vanity raw WPM as the headline. If it did not clear the quiz, it did not happen.