Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dsxyliea

geon.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 208 posts

Re: Dsxyliea

#151

Post by mchaver »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #29

This reminds me of the meme that went around a few years ago (dear god, 2003!?), claiming that Cambridge researchers showed that you had no trouble reading scrambled word text: "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed…

I would guess part of the reason why native speakers (and probably fluent speakers) can read that text is because of linguistics probability (Bayesian probability). Humans seem to use probability of phrases to fill in blanks in speech/reading.

For example, if you see/hear the phrase "I am" there is a pretty high chance that the next word is one of the following: an adjective, the person's name, a/an or here because of syntax. Or if someone says "would you like a cup of", you can guess that the next word is likely some sort of liquid because that is what goes in a cup. Similarly, you can sometimes finish other people's sentences because of probability.

The word scrambling breaks down, as mentioned in the link, with ambiguous words where changing the order makes it look like another word and unfamiliar words.

Re: Dsxyliea

#152

Post by tkinom »

mchaver wrote: post #151
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #29

This reminds me of the meme that went around a few years ago (dear god, 2003!?), claiming that Cambridge researchers showed that you had no trouble reading scrambled word text: "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed…

I would guess part of the reason why native speakers (and probably fluent speakers) can read that text is because of linguistics probability (Bayesian probability). Humans seem to use probability of phrases to fill in blanks in speech/reading. For example, if you see/hear the phrase "I am" there is a pretty high chance that the next word is one of the following: an adjective, the person's name, a/an or here because o…

I am pretty sure I am dyslexic. My favour slogan is "Dyslexic of the World Untie!"

Re: Dsxyliea

#153

Post by viraptor »

obeone wrote: post #77

According to Alice Wellborn, a dyslexia expert of some note: Many years ago, researchers believed that dyslexia was a visual perceptual problem - that it was based in how a person saw letters and words. Now we know for sure, through brain imaging studies, that dyslexia is a problem in the language system of the brain, not the visual system. Dyslexia is the result of a significant weakness in the phonological processi…

However some kinds can be corrected like visual problems. I know a guy with dyslexia who uses very specific, slightly tinted (towards green) lenses in his glasses. I can't remember what else was different about them, but basically they were very personalised and had the effect of slowing down the eye movement over the text. (as in, it forced him to track the lines normally instead of jumping around) Based on chat experience, they made a lot of difference.

Re: Dsxyliea

#154

Post by possibilistic »

This is uncannily similar to my own personal experience with ADHD. Instead of words appearing scrambled, though, my focus during reading is drawn to random words within a text. I might skip to a new sentence or jump down a few paragraphs; it's entirely arbitrary. This process usually continues forward and back, resetting every few seconds. The longer I read something, the worse the effect becomes. It takes a lot of effort to get through things sometimes.

Whatever this effect is, it is somewhat lessened by adequate sleep, a low-sugar diet, and prescribed medication. It never completely goes away, though. I have good days and bad days; even at my best, though, working through long texts, papers, or technical literature will eventually cause my mind to wander. Whatever this is (I blame ADHD), it's prevented me from ever being able to enjoy reading literature or long-form journalism. It's a pity, too, because I enjoy the content. The task itself is just too mentally stressful. Reading is, sadly, a form of labor.

It's weird, because skimming comes easily. Visual forms of information are also incredibly easy to digest.

Do others with ADHD have a similar problem with this?

Re: Dsxyliea

#155

Post by marincounty »

mchaver wrote: post #151
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #29

This reminds me of the meme that went around a few years ago (dear god, 2003!?), claiming that Cambridge researchers showed that you had no trouble reading scrambled word text: "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed…

I would guess part of the reason why native speakers (and probably fluent speakers) can read that text is because of linguistics probability (Bayesian probability). Humans seem to use probability of phrases to fill in blanks in speech/reading. For example, if you see/hear the phrase "I am" there is a pretty high chance that the next word is one of the following: an adjective, the person's name, a/an or here because o…

I don't know why most people can read scrambled words. I have no proof to what I am going to propose.

I had a horrid time learning how to read. I had a worse time learning how to spell.

It all changed around the end of 3rd grade. What changed! I just memorized what the words looked like visually. You could misspell a word/words, and it didn't matter. I was looking at what a word looked like visually. Even now, I have no problem understands typos/misspelling, and never see the need to correct someone.

I have a feeling there are many people out there who are reading like myself. I don't know, just have a feeling. I do transpose letters in in writing, but I don't think I'm I have dyslexia.

Once I realized my process of reading, I caught up to the other kids. I say my process. It's probably everyone's process. I really don't know. All I know is the way I was taught to read was useless. I was never taught how to memorize, other than route repetition. Route repetition didn't work for myself. Even today I know what 8 X 8 is by visualizing the 64.

It looks like most of you breezed through high school, and college. So you don't need to know what helped me.

What helped me in learning was visualizing. In college, I took notes once. I tried to make each page look visually different. I usually drew doodles, or detailed drawings all over the pages. For instance, when I needed to memoririze all the parts of the Femur bone, I drew the bone on the page and labeled all the areas I needed to know. Even years later, I can bring up that page in my head. And no, I don't have a idetic memory. It's just the way I got through school.

I definetly had a learning problem. The specialists at the time offered no help.

I got off topic, but if you have, or know of a kid who's not keeping up in school, pass on this visualization method. It's simple. You don't need to pay for a course. It's easy concept.

(By the way, I'm still not a natural reader. I'm not the guy who can just pick up a book(fiction), and zip through it. I find myself losing my place on the page. I sometimes need to put my finger on the line I'm reading. My mind starts to wander. Although, if the author is a skilled writer, like Nabrakov; I have no problem getting through the book?

I don't have this problem when reading most non-fiction? It could be I just don't like a lot of fiction?)

Re: Dsxyliea

#156

Post by Your_Creator »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #29

This reminds me of the meme that went around a few years ago (dear god, 2003!?), claiming that Cambridge researchers showed that you had no trouble reading scrambled word text: "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed…

it seems probable that phenomenon may be related to what's going on in the brains of people with dyslexia

Re: Dsxyliea

#157

Post by xerophyte12932 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #52
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #29

This reminds me of the meme that went around a few years ago (dear god, 2003!?), claiming that Cambridge researchers showed that you had no trouble reading scrambled word text: "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed…

This actually seems like a problem with the implementation linked here: it seems to avoid scrambling the beginning or end of the word, and as a result you can mostly read the text without too much difficulty. To more accurately convey the problems faced by someone with dyslexia, the words should be scrambled in a way that doesn't leave them easy to make out.

I think one of the factors you are missing is that we haven't had dyslexia all our lives. We have read the unscrambled version so much that the scrambled versions rarely deter us from reading at normal speed. But a real dyslexic never had that chance so their struggle is far greater. It's like when you come across words you don't know or can't guess. Even when you stare at the word for quite some time, you can't make sense of what it is.

Re: Dsxyliea

#158

Post by deelowe »

ssharp wrote: post #130
deelowe wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uhh... I'm sitting here wondering if I'm mildly dyslexic. I often swap letters around when typing, read words that aren't there, leave words out, etc... I've always had this problem and just assumed I didn't proof-read well enough. Is there a test for mild dyslexia? How would one know for sure? Should I care? I doesn't bother me much other than people thinking I have terrible grammar and reading comprehension skills.

I do many of these things as well. I've always been curious if it's some mild form of dyslexia or ADHD. It bothers me but I don't think it's been an obstacle.

yeah, that's where I am. It comes up in emails a lot. I find myself saying "I read that 3 times and it made sense when I sent it." Other than that, I can live with it.

Re: Dsxyliea

#159

Post by itsnotvalid »

Funny thing is that the text is still very readable (slower, but still readable) to me. I think it should be much worse for people who have the real problems...

Re: Dsxyliea

#160

Post by gnicholas »

oib wrote: post #26

Ugh, as someone with dyslexia, it's nothing visual, so trying to visualize being dyslexic is an exercise in futility. You know those "drunk" googles that distort your view? They certainly make it harder to walk, but they in no way make you feel drunk... Try explaining someone what it feels like being on LSD... you can't. Telling people that letters jump around is an easy way to dismiss people whit out having to do a…

I'm curious to know where you live. In the US—largely due to the impact of Dr. Shaywitz's work at Yale—the dominant thinking is that dyslexia is phonological, not visual. Yet in other parts of the world (including other English-speaking countries) researchers and the general public view dyslexia as something that can be visual or can be non-visual, depending on the person. One MIT professor estimated that roughly 1/3 are visual, 1/3 are non-visual, and 1/3 are a bit of both.

After talking with dozens of researchers, special ed teachers, and disability-rights advocates, I've learned that dyslexia is defined as a residual category. That is, someone is dyslexic if they don't read well, and it's not due to general lack of visual acuity or general lack of intelligence.

Considering that dyslexia is a residual category, it seems unlikely that the entire category would be caused by a single type of deficit. And in light of the fact that some (I have no idea what percentage) dyslexic readers say that their difficulty is visual in nature, this seems even less likely.

I became interested in this question because my startup, whose technology uses a visual trick to improve reading ability, became very popular in the dyslexic community. I was perplexed because much of the US-based literature proclaimed that dyslexia wasn't visual. In talking with folks in the US, I've seen a lot of cognitive dissonance because people find our (purely visual) tech to be very helpful for themselves or for their students, but it's been hammered into their head that dyslexia is not visual in nature. If that were 100% true, then one wouldn't expect a purely visual technology to be so helpful.

At the end of the day, we aren't completely sure why the tech helps dyslexic readers so much—we're just happy that people are using and benefiting from it. Sorry this reply got long and a bit off-topic; hopefully it's relevant to the larger conversation.

Post reply on HN