Abstract
AbstractThe basic differences between good and poor readers have been a standing topic among educational psychologists. Different symptom variables such as reading rate, eye movements, and subvocalization have been studied in this century-long search for the real cause to good or poor reading. During the latest decades these studies have, so far in vain, focused one question in particular: Why do the good readers show a better reading comprehension although they do not score higher than the poor ones on a conventional intelligence test, reading comprehension testing being one way, among others, of operationally defining what we use to call intelligence. I suggest that this missing link might be the good readers’ ability to perceive, i.e., to read, during their saccadic movements. This suggestion is forwarded since it has been possible to show that perception during voluntary saccadic movements is feasible.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
