It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Jasper de Waard said:
I think the visual processing is usually faster than the linguistic processing (these are quite seperate brain regions), so that the gains of a 'better' writing system would be minimal.
Thomas Phinney said:If you keep linguistic-content per saccade fixed across writing systems, and the spatial part is not critical (being below the threshold of what people can take in visually), then time-per-saccade could still be a variable.
Jasper de Waard said:Furthermore I think it is important to note that covert attention (directing attention to a location without moving our eyes there) also plays a significant role in reading.
Jasper de Waard said:Furthermore, I really see no way of reliably testing whether some writing systems are better than others. @Hrant H. Papazian you seem to have ideas, I'm curious.
John Savard said:one possibility is that the sole beneficiaries from an improved writing system might be geniuses who happen to have unusually fast linguistic processing.
John Savard said:In any case, this imageshows what the sort of "improved" writing system I was thinking of
Thomas Phinney said:
It is solving a problem that I suspect we do not have
Does more data per unit of foveal field translate to faster reading, or more time spent interpreting data per saccade?
Robin Mientjes said:
Hrant, you clearly want to see different testing done to find answers to what we don’t know – but people are reporting on what we do know.