I don’t hear the words I read in my mind, which is probably why I read so fast. Instead, I see images. It doesn’t happen immediately; I need to get into the reading for the picture to appear. But once it comes, the images are so vivid, colorful and strong that I often have the impression that I saw a movie based on the reading.
And it’s not only fiction that gives me vivid imagery. History and sociology provide very clear pictures of their own. Today, I was reading the new history of Ukraine by a Harvard scholar and could clearly see the faces of the medieval Slavs the author talks about.
What is it for you? Do you hear words or see images when you read?
Clarissa's Blog 
Are you a visual learner?
I totally ‘hear’ texts including in foreign languages that I don’t know. I even hear French (extremely weak passive knowledge) even though I usually don’t know just how it’s supposed to sound (if that makes sense).
I used to like to learn new scripts/alphabets partly due to the fun of them turning into recognizable sounds rather than squiggly visual confusion (cyrillic remains a weak link – not enough ascenders like t, k, l or descenders like g p y)
In terms of learning, my preferred senses are touch and hearing. I’ve very much a kinesthetic learner with audio in second place. Sight is a distant third for me.
This makes me not the fastest reader in the world (especially reading for comprehension) as I tend ot need to subvocalize if I want to retain a text. I also subvocalize when writing (and rewriting tends to be to make things easier and/or more fun to say).
My mind’s eye operates too but in a weird way. The images tend to not be in sync with the author’s descriptions. Once I have a mental image of a character nothing the author can write changes it – so I character I imagine with dark straight hair keeps the dark hair even after the author mentions their curly red hair….
LikeLike
TOTAL BUNK!
The above sentence tells you that the data base used to form the conclusions in this “scientific” article is WORTHLESS, full stop.
Even when single, initial scientific studies are done correctly — with proper controls for the subjects studied, and proper examination of their responses — initial studies have NO value except to serve as the basis for further studies, to determine if the results can be duplicated and quantified.
So even if this study had been done right — and it was conducted idiotically, taking at face value the nutty, unquantified words of anonymous posters on Yahoo! Answers, who often post ridiculously absurd answers on a wide variety of subjects — the study would have meant NOTHING until much more research was done. Now it doesn’t even provide a valid basis for further research, unless the researchers start from scratch with a reasonable set of KNOWN control subjects.
It may be entertaining to ask your readers their subjective experience about how they THINK they react when they read fiction and history. (Most people in previous, more controlled studies that I remember convert text into visual imagery, and the sound effects are purely secondary. Voices are RARELY heard as distinct sounds unless a character is uniquely important to to narrative, and then he/she is given a vaguely distinct voice, not that of a generic, disembodied reader.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would answer that for me, it depends on what I am reading, so Dreidel’s answer seems right FOR me. Sometimes pictures, sometimes voices, most of the time I am just reading, not aware of pictures or voices. I tend to read quickly so if it were voices all the time, they would sound like auctioneers.
Brains are “wired” in different ways so anyone’s reported experience seems possible to me. In Temple Grandin’s “Thinking in Pictures,” she says just that, that all her thinking is in pictures.
LikeLike
I agree completely that these studies, especially the ones that get popularized, are scientifically worthless. But it’s like my mailbox quiz, a good way to gain insight into how one processes information. It’s simple, inoffensive fun.
LikeLike
I also sometimes do one and sometimes the other. I realized while reading this that I expect my students to do the same thing when I am talking about mathematics. It seems to me to be very important in mathematics to easily and seamlessly switch from one mode to the other.
LikeLike
Hmm…I wonder if this is a clue to why some people have “math brains” and some don’t, the ability to switch between these two modes easily? I don’t know how to visualize any math but geometry, and that only a little. Is it even possible to visualize algebra?
LikeLike
Math is a lot more germane to visualization than many things as it is specifically about space, volume, etc. It is not just geometry that is about shapes. (Poetry is more about sound than people give it credit for, they are constantly looking to images for meaning and will even ignore grammar in favor of some vague picture….)
LikeLike
Leaving the scientific value -or lack of- of the article aside, I have absolutely no idea what that reading-voice may sound like. I mostly see images, like you. Another thing (and that annoys me) is that when I speak with someone I automatically see what that person says in written form. It mostly happen during dialogues. Very annoying.
LikeLike
Me, too! I also need to “see” the written version of what people are saying. Like captions.
LikeLike
Captions. Exactly. But in my case it only happens during one-on-one conversations. And it is very annoying when you feel like your interlocutor should have used a semi-colon.
LikeLike
Really? Most people fluent in a language speak (and comprehend spoken words) much faster than they can possibly read that language in written form. So do the visualized sentences zoom through your mind at a very blurry rate?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
Neither, I don’t translate, I look at the words. If I do not understand, I might try to rephrase, by speaking, writing, or drawing, but mostly I just read the words.
LikeLike
I do both, to the point where I generally read aloud when I want or need to visualize something. When I read in my head, I also visualize, but not quite to the extent of when I read aloud. I also read aloud extremely quickly, which I have been told is strange. But it’s the only way to reasonably keep up with my thoughts while still moving on in the text.
On the other hand, when I listen to text, I’m less likely to form an image of the content than I am to form an image of the words. But I think part of this is the synesthesia.
LikeLike
It’s a mixture of both to some extent but I definitely “hear” the text I’m reading and that I’m writing. With reading, the characters have different voices (and different appearances but my brain definitely gives them voices.) If I’m reading more academic work, I also hear it….but in a different way.
If I’m going too quickly with writing, it sometimes results in really embarrassing errors– errors that I’ve made while commenting on this very blog! But I will do thinks like mix up here/hear or forward/foreword. I know the difference intellectually of course. But since the words sound the same, and because I’m a fairly fast typist, my brain just subs in the word based on sound.
When I’m deeply writing and reading, I sometimes becomes aware that I’m making really exaggerated faces and gesturing. It’s like I’m acting all the parts or something. I can’t quite explain it. Reading and writing are definitely such complex processes aren’t they? 🙂
LikeLike
When I read literary stuff, I often have images in my head, as well as a narrator’s voice. In the case of a play, I have many voices going at once. I recently started reading a novel set in Ireland and I made a conscious decision to read it with an Irish lilt in my head, because it made more sense and seemed more musical to me that way.
When I read scholarship, I usually just have the narrative voice in my head — not imagery. When I read the news, I have Mara Liasson’s voice in my head from NPR news. 🙂
LikeLike
I see images…but then again, I’m an illustrator/cartoonist, so….:)
LikeLike