A couple years back, Bionic Reading took the internet by storm with influencers advocating it as a method to increase reading speed and comprehension for people who have ADHD and dyslexia. Readwise quickly debunked this1, and in their conclusion highlighted studies2, 3 that show what really matters: Font choice significantly affects reading speed without affecting comprehension – but this effect is highly individualized. There is no “best” font.
Bionic Reading has since changed its website dramatically, but used to make the claim that on an independant test of 12 participants, there was a “positive effect”, despite also claiming that some participants found it “disturbing” and that the results were unclear4, 5. Bionic Reading claims to improve how fast your eyes/brain can see words, but as The Conversation points out, reading speed is based on language processing, not how fast your eyes see or visual cortex processes visual information.
Bionic Reading appears to be a solution in search of a problem, with a profit motive rather than an altruistic motive. Their service is partially a font, partially bolding certain letters. The concept is patented and charged for. This is not the kind of behavior you’d expect from a genuine interest in helping people.
While some may benefit from using it, this does not make it special – it makes it equivalent to any other font choice. It has been researched thoroughly6, 7, with no significant benefit found.
References
I try to make sure all references are archived through services mentioned on Archives & Sources. For this post, all references were backed up using Ghostarchive, as it was the only public-facing working archive at the time of writing.
- Readwise: Does Bionic Reading actually work? We timed over 2,000 readers and the results might surprise you. Readers were 2.6 wpm slower on average – a statistically insignificant result.
- Study: Accelerating Adult Readers with Typeface: A Study of Individual Preferences and Effectiveness “[…] readers in our study read better with varying fonts. An average 117 word per minute difference between worst and best typeface, or around 10 additional pages an hour […]”
- Study: Towards Individuated Reading Experiences: Different Fonts Increase Reading Speed for Different Individuals “Participants’ reading speeds […] increased by 35% when comparing fastest and slowest fonts without affecting reading comprehension.”
- The Conversation: Can Bionic Reading make you a speed reader? Not so fast
- Quartz: Can adjusting font styles really help us read faster?
- Study: Kan bionic reading bidra til økt prestasjon i leseforståelse hos sjette-trinns elever? “This study […] shows that formatting as a method to enhance students reading comprehension may be inappropriate […]”
- Study: No, Bionic Reading does not work “Statistical analyses revealed no significant difference in reading times between Bionic and normal reading.”