Very nice. I can only watch small parts at the time though because I can't stand horizontally scrolling text.. it is in fundamental conflict with how I read.
@Tor
I Thought Norwegians read from left to right (as most other latin-derived languages)
Well, you guys just HAVE to be different, don't you?
Since the separation of Norway from Sweden, until this very day.You guys just do everything "the other way around". Just because you are free to do so.
Very nice. I can only watch small parts at the time though because I can't stand horizontally scrolling text.. it is in fundamental conflict with how I read.
-Tor
The horizontal scrolling gets to me too. After watching a while when I stop the playback my computer screen keeps moving around (it's kind of freaky).
@Ahle2, This is very cool. I look forward to trying it out.
@Tor
I Thought Norwegians read from left to right (as most other latin-derived languages)
Well, you guys just HAVE to be different, don't you?
Since the separation of Norway from Sweden, until this very day.You guys just do everything "the other way around". Just because you are free to do so.
I read a snapshot of a line with several words at the time, then I move my eyes to the right and read the rest of the line. Before my reading was destroyed by the method employed by elementary school I would read a full line in one snapshot (I could read more than twice as fast when I started first class compared to when I was finished with sixth grade.. I didn't catch on to what they were doing with my reading until 5th grade).
The horizontally scrolling text interferes with this method, because I have to try to keep my eyes moving at the same speed so that I can take the snapshot, and then repeat that. Very tiring. So to me it would be easier with static text which gets updated now and then.
I have no idea how other people read. It's probably one of those things about others which is impossible to relate to.
I've always read in small chunks, coupla three words at a clip. (Ignored the primary school "tips" as a kid, reading easily before the first grade here.)
Many people take it sequentially as that is taught all over the place. Some people learn to take chunks, and a few take very large chunks at once. Almost everyone can be taught to go more than one word at a time, "speed reading" style, where more coarse eye movements are performed, instead of the many detail ones needed to parse individual letters, etc..
One artifact of that for me personally is I can read things that are blurry, or that have missing / wrong letters almost as easily as ordinary text...
I find scrolling text harder because of that, but not bothersome. Usually, I just see it in brief bursts, so it scrolls, then suddenly, there are a few words, and it scrolls again. While the are building, it's just shapes mostly, unless I mentally choose to say each letter.
Many of the "speed reading" courses actually focus on scanning, key word parsing, etc... instead of a linear, examine it all in detail. Ideally, you've got fewer overall eye movements per body of text and more parallel processing of the characters. The first step to this is to lock on a word, then read the one before and after with no eye movement at all expanding your attention focus instead, skipping a word or two ahead to repeat. This will be SLOW at first, but your brain will build skill, soon equating to fewer eye movements and more text processing. A nice speed boost is possible just doing that. Almost everybody can do this.
I've found that people vary widely in how their central vision really works. Some, like Tor apparently, have a very wide range of attention focus, others more narrow. I think mine is moderate. Can't take the really big jumps, but can do more than just one word at a time.
Most people DO read like they talk, in fact internalizing the vocalizations, "hearing" the words as they see them. The key to faster reading is to learn to NOT do that, and then more than one word is possible in central vision, in parallel. If you can break that association, then it's really fast, depending on how your central vision is. I am not sure how possible this is as we age. Bet that varies widely too.
A similar thing happens with morse code. At first people hear the sounds, map them to a letter, then deal with the letters, until a word is formed, which they vocalize internally. This process tops out at 5-10 WPM. Going above that isn't possible, because our brains cannot generally buffer the sounds, while performing the internal mappings to vocalizations, etc...
At some point, disassociating the internal visualization or vocalization gets rid of most of the human processing needed, then morse becomes a language! It quite literally is heard like the spoken word is, and can be used far more directly. Much higher copy rates are possible, 20 - 50+ WPM copy rates are typical for people who have done this.
I never could do it with code. Tried, but only managed a few simple words that I hear as words, not sounds that I map to letters than words. In any case, that is the general dynamic on these things as I currently understand them.
***Thanks a bunch for posting up your code. Seriously appreciated. I am eager to look through it to learn something about how you do the synth work so well.
@Tor
Are you some kind of savant? Or used to be?
Can you memorize a whole page just by looking at it for a short time?
heck no! :-) I used to read a line at a time, now I read half a line (as in the width of a line in a book) at the time. So, as a child I would basically read the page straight down, but it was still a line at the time, not a page! :-)
I don't scan from left to right, I doubt many people do - my father does, because he is a little bit dyslectic and he was badly trained in school: He basically was taught to read by following a finger along the line. Learned once, that can't be unlearned. So he decided to avoid the risk of bad school training with me and taught me to read two years before I started at school. (And he was right in his worries, as it turned out - in school we were taught to read by having one person read out loud and the rest of us following the text. That results in extremely bad and slow reading habits, and it destroyed my own reading quite a bit until I caught on and stopped following the text while the speaker was reading out loud).
I think most people read the same way as they talk, at relatively fixed rate.
Or is it just me?
I don't know how you read, but I doubt you read the way you think you do! :-) Research by camera shows that the normal way to read is for the eye to move and stop, move and stop, in various ways.
So, to get back to the video, the way I have to read it is to look away from the text, wait a bit, read those words, move the eyes away. Or I get crazy. But it's a great video, so I keep at it! It'll take me some days though.. :-) I'm currently at 8m20s
Most people DO read like they talk, in fact internalizing the vocalizations, "hearing" the words as they see them. The key to faster reading is to learn to NOT do that, and then more than one word is possible in central vision. If you can break that association, then it's really fast, depending on how your central vision is. I am not sure how possible this is as we age. Bet that varies widely too.
Indeed, I definitely don't "hear" anything while reading, unless I go back and deliberately do it (e.g. by thinking about a person speaking the sentence I just read. Maybe a person with some specific accent or voice or whatever). But I hear nothing while reading. If I did, I imagine the reading would be as l slow as speaking.. intolerable. Most people read much faster than they speak, no? I always thought so, but recently I read a discussion which included a posting by a guy who said that his wife didn't hear a voice while reading, and he indicated that he thought this was exceptional.. I never thought that this was what's meant by the 'inner voice', and I'm not certain that it is. As I said earlier I'm not sure I have any idea of how other people read, when I think about it.
A similar thing happens with morse code. At first people hear the sounds, map them to a letter, then deal with the letters, until a word is formed, which they vocalize. This process tops out at 5-10 WPM. Going above that isn't possible, because our brains cannot generally buffer the sounds, while performing the internal mappings to vocalizations, etc...
At some point, disassociating the internal visualization or vocalization gets rid of most of the human processing needed, then morse becomes a language! It quite literally is heard like the spoken word is, and can be used far more directly. Much higher copy rates are possible, 20 - 50+ WPM copy rates are typical for people who have done this.
I never could do it with code. Tried, but only managed a few simple words that I hear as words, not sounds that I map to letters than words. In any case, that is the general dynamic on these things as I currently understand them.
When I was learning morse code all of us students found that we had much more problems with the slow rate (for the lesser ham license), it was easier to comprehend the 50% faster rate used for the other license.
Not that I ever trained enough to get good at understanding morse code. But when I was doing my military service there was a civilian guy there who had worked there all his life. His job was to sit at a type writer, listening to (high speed) morse code and write it down. This was on an old-fashioned type writer of course, and when he was done with a page he had to replace it with a new sheet of paper. The morse code didn't stop, of course. So the guy would roll out the paper, bring it over to a shelf, walk back with a new sheet of paper and roll it into the typewriter, then write really fast until he had caught up with all the morse code that had happened while he took the stroll around the room and replaced the paper. Then he just went on from there. That was... slightly impressive.. ;-)
That is exactly "the inner voice". Often, it's just that persons voice, but it can be other voices. When I read fiction with dialog, I'll internalize a few voices, and that goes slowly, but it's entertaining too, so there you go. Edit: Where it's very descriptive I just read, no hearing. Where there is dialog, I almost always internalize vocalizations.
When it's technical, no voice is needed, and I generally don't internalize it, or maybe small bits, depending.
I know the source of that habit of sometimes internalizing, and it was theater, where memorizing lines was much easier, done "in character", with that inner voice adding emotional content to the text, creating more associations for better recall later on. I'll actually internalize the other actors voices for their parts, able to hear it "as it would be said", instead of just knowing it as the words to be said.
Edit: That the processing problem again. One either pays now or later with theater. If the stuff is just read, without the vocalizations, on stage then the trigger words must be parsed and such before line delivery. Mistakes happen, unless one is paying close attention. On the other hand, internalizing it associates the trigger words and such right then. Easier on-stage, as the conversation has already happened! I can't easily take it in real time, so the prep has to be done, and that's often why people will script read. Those associations need to form. Less than real time delivery appears flat and contrived, which generally isn't immersive and not entertaining as intended, though it might be entertaining to watch the various players struggle...
My own experience was learning to read through several influences before formal school. I got sick, and we had a move, which resulted in my skipping the core lessons, and they never fully solidified. What you wrote here resonates with that experience very well, as I can recall that basic conflict over the "how" it's done, and since I could read well, I generally didn't pay much attention. Maybe it's good I didn't!
Yeah, slow rate morse is HARD. My first training was on 5 WPM, and I found it very difficult. Later on, the code was delivered at the 20 WPM rate, but 5 WPM spacing. Much easier. Completely agreed. The FCC test I took split this, delivering 5 WPM spacing, with something like 10 WPM rate. Moderate difficulty for me.
Indeed, I definitely don't "hear" anything while reading, unless I go back and deliberately do it (e.g. by thinking about a person speaking the sentence I just read. Maybe a person with some specific accent or voice or whatever). But I hear nothing while reading. If I did, I imagine the reading would be as l slow as speaking.. intolerable. Most people read much faster than they speak, no? I always thought so, but recently I read a discussion which included a posting by a guy who said that his wife didn't hear a voice while reading, and he indicated that he thought this was exceptional.. I never thought that this was what's meant by the 'inner voice', and I'm not certain that it is. As I said earlier I'm not sure I have any idea of how other people read, when I think about it.
-Tor
I seldom hear words/dialog, but mostly my reading style was fairly well described by the author character in the Steven King book, "Misery" (don't read this one unless you really have no other choice...like watching the proverbial train wreck while a passenger on it) where the author does not actually know he is typing the story, rather he falls into it and it happens all around him. He does not hear the keys, or hear words, rather absorbs or experiences them and then sees he has filled some pages.
At one time between schools in the service I had access to a reading lab for nearly a month and had topped out over 1k words / min with over 80% comprehension and retention. Probably less than half that by now, but a good Heinlein, Clancy, Baldacci, or King can be a late nighter depending on how into it I am. Thank god for Half-Price Books and Goodwill/Salvation Army stores, amazing what you find! The Stand uncut with all the edits restored actually took a few days.
In the fourth grade when we had that silly SRA reading system, I would Smile off the teacher by pulling the reading from the gold / silver end just to read something I wanted rather than what they wanted me to read because I would be bored ###$%less. Wasn't supposed to be reading those, but did they ever question it??? Nah......
01-Paperboy - Mark Cooksey - 1986
02-Enforcer - Markus Siebold - 1992
03-Robocop - Jonathan Dunn - 1988
04-Nemesis the Warlock - Rob Hubbard - 1987
05-Arkanoid - Martin Galway - 1987
06-Flimbos Quest - Reyn Ouwehand & J. Bjerregaard - 1990
07-Batman The Movie - Matthew Cannon - 1989
08-Ghosts n Goblins - Mark Cooksey - 1986
09-The Hobbit - Neil Brennan - 1985
10-Parallax - Martin Galway - 1986
11-Cauldron II - Richard Joseph - 1986
12-Midnight Resistance - Keith Tinman - 1990
13-Castle of Terror - Neil Brennan - 1985
14-Rolling Ronny - Markus Schneider - 1991
15-Ocean Loader 2 - Martin Galway - 1985
16-Master of Magic - Rob Hubbard 1985
17-California Games - Chris Grigg - 1987
18-Boulder Dash - Peter Liepa - 1984
19-LED Storm - Tim Follin - 1989
20-Terrys Big Adventure - Allister Brimble - 1989
21-Ocean Loader 5 - Jonathan Dunn - 1988
22-Pitfall II-Lost Caverns - Tim Shotter - 1983
23-Aztec Challenge - Paul Norman - 1984
24-Bubble Bobble - Peter Clarke - 1987
25-Cobra - Ben Daglish - 1986
26-Jackal - Mark Cooksey - 1987
27-Yie Ar Kung Fu - Martin Galway - 1985
28-PP Hammer - Thomas Detert - 1991
29-Night Breed - Matthew Cannon - 1990
30-Head Over Heels - Peter Clarke - 1987
31-Krakout - Ben Daglish - 1987
32-Shadow of the Beast - Fredrik Segerfalk - 1990
33-Comic Bakery - Martin Galway - 1986
34-Cool World - Gerard Gourley - 1992
35-Bionic Commando - Tim Follin - 1988
36-Daley Thompsons Decathlon - David Dunn & Martin Galway - 1984
37-Rick Dangerous II - Dave Pridmore - 1990
38-Firefly - Fred Gray - 1988
39-Ghouls n Ghosts - Tim Follin - 1989
40-Forbidden Forest - Paul Norman - 1983
41-Kikstart II - Shaun Southern - 1987
42-Gauntlet III - Tim Follin - 1992
43-Power Drift - Dave Lowe - 1989
44-Commando - Rob Hubbard - 1985
45-Speedball - David Whittaker - 1989
46-Last Ninja - Ben Daglish & Anthony Lees - 1987
47-X-Out - Michael Hendriks - 1989
48-Golden Axe - Jeroen Tel - 1990
49-International Karate - Rob Hubbard - 1986
50-Storm - David Whittaker - 1986
51-Spy Hunter - ???? - 1983
52-Crazy Comets - Rob Hubbard - 1985
53-1942 - Mark Cooksey -1986
54-Cybernoid - Jeroen Tel - 1988
55-Last Ninja 3 - Reyn Ouwehand - 1991
56-Monty on the Run - Rob Hubbard - 1985
57-Bruce Lee - John A. Fitzpatrick - 1983
58-Great Giana Sisters - Chris Huelsbeck - 1987
59-R-Type - Chris H
I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.
When I read, I do hear the "inner voice," but I can also read many times faster than I, or almost anyone for that matter, can talk. My eyes don't track a word at a time, but I still hear voices, especially when reading a story with characters.
In elementary school, I often had trouble in English class, because I couldn't read slow enough to keep up with the class as they were reading.
I've got that one. Blurry and mirror image read fairly well too.
Pretty sure I got it from watching the TV late night from the bedroom through the mirror... Was supposed to be bedtime, and for a considerable time, nobody picked up on the "but I need the door open" rationale. They ran the sound high enough to enjoy the programming. So I would go to bed easily, laying there with one eye, or sometimes both open just enough to watch the show, but not so far that I would get caught easily. After a time, reading the words just happened, and I didn't even notice.
Reviewing printed documents isn't happening as much for me these days. We will use a screen so everybody can see. When I do this, I'll often sit across from somebody else and just read it upside down. Every once in a while, I'll get stuck on something, but not often. Errors in spacing and style seem to show much better too. Handwritten things in script are very difficult to read upside down.
Comments
Thank you,
T o n y
-Tor
I Thought Norwegians read from left to right (as most other latin-derived languages)
Well, you guys just HAVE to be different, don't you?
Since the separation of Norway from Sweden, until this very day.You guys just do everything "the other way around". Just because you are free to do so.
The horizontal scrolling gets to me too. After watching a while when I stop the playback my computer screen keeps moving around (it's kind of freaky).
@Ahle2, This is very cool. I look forward to trying it out.
Duane
The horizontally scrolling text interferes with this method, because I have to try to keep my eyes moving at the same speed so that I can take the snapshot, and then repeat that. Very tiring. So to me it would be easier with static text which gets updated now and then.
I have no idea how other people read. It's probably one of those things about others which is impossible to relate to.
-Tor
Are you some kind of savant? Or used to be?
Can you memorize a whole page just by looking at it for a short time?
I think most people read the same way as they talk, at relatively fixed rate.
Or is it just me?
Many people take it sequentially as that is taught all over the place. Some people learn to take chunks, and a few take very large chunks at once. Almost everyone can be taught to go more than one word at a time, "speed reading" style, where more coarse eye movements are performed, instead of the many detail ones needed to parse individual letters, etc..
One artifact of that for me personally is I can read things that are blurry, or that have missing / wrong letters almost as easily as ordinary text...
I find scrolling text harder because of that, but not bothersome. Usually, I just see it in brief bursts, so it scrolls, then suddenly, there are a few words, and it scrolls again. While the are building, it's just shapes mostly, unless I mentally choose to say each letter.
Many of the "speed reading" courses actually focus on scanning, key word parsing, etc... instead of a linear, examine it all in detail. Ideally, you've got fewer overall eye movements per body of text and more parallel processing of the characters. The first step to this is to lock on a word, then read the one before and after with no eye movement at all expanding your attention focus instead, skipping a word or two ahead to repeat. This will be SLOW at first, but your brain will build skill, soon equating to fewer eye movements and more text processing. A nice speed boost is possible just doing that. Almost everybody can do this.
I've found that people vary widely in how their central vision really works. Some, like Tor apparently, have a very wide range of attention focus, others more narrow. I think mine is moderate. Can't take the really big jumps, but can do more than just one word at a time.
Most people DO read like they talk, in fact internalizing the vocalizations, "hearing" the words as they see them. The key to faster reading is to learn to NOT do that, and then more than one word is possible in central vision, in parallel. If you can break that association, then it's really fast, depending on how your central vision is. I am not sure how possible this is as we age. Bet that varies widely too.
A similar thing happens with morse code. At first people hear the sounds, map them to a letter, then deal with the letters, until a word is formed, which they vocalize internally. This process tops out at 5-10 WPM. Going above that isn't possible, because our brains cannot generally buffer the sounds, while performing the internal mappings to vocalizations, etc...
At some point, disassociating the internal visualization or vocalization gets rid of most of the human processing needed, then morse becomes a language! It quite literally is heard like the spoken word is, and can be used far more directly. Much higher copy rates are possible, 20 - 50+ WPM copy rates are typical for people who have done this.
I never could do it with code. Tried, but only managed a few simple words that I hear as words, not sounds that I map to letters than words. In any case, that is the general dynamic on these things as I currently understand them.
***Thanks a bunch for posting up your code. Seriously appreciated. I am eager to look through it to learn something about how you do the synth work so well.
I don't scan from left to right, I doubt many people do - my father does, because he is a little bit dyslectic and he was badly trained in school: He basically was taught to read by following a finger along the line. Learned once, that can't be unlearned. So he decided to avoid the risk of bad school training with me and taught me to read two years before I started at school. (And he was right in his worries, as it turned out - in school we were taught to read by having one person read out loud and the rest of us following the text. That results in extremely bad and slow reading habits, and it destroyed my own reading quite a bit until I caught on and stopped following the text while the speaker was reading out loud).
I don't know how you read, but I doubt you read the way you think you do! :-) Research by camera shows that the normal way to read is for the eye to move and stop, move and stop, in various ways.
So, to get back to the video, the way I have to read it is to look away from the text, wait a bit, read those words, move the eyes away. Or I get crazy. But it's a great video, so I keep at it! It'll take me some days though.. :-) I'm currently at 8m20s
-Tor
When I was learning morse code all of us students found that we had much more problems with the slow rate (for the lesser ham license), it was easier to comprehend the 50% faster rate used for the other license.
Not that I ever trained enough to get good at understanding morse code. But when I was doing my military service there was a civilian guy there who had worked there all his life. His job was to sit at a type writer, listening to (high speed) morse code and write it down. This was on an old-fashioned type writer of course, and when he was done with a page he had to replace it with a new sheet of paper. The morse code didn't stop, of course. So the guy would roll out the paper, bring it over to a shelf, walk back with a new sheet of paper and roll it into the typewriter, then write really fast until he had caught up with all the morse code that had happened while he took the stroll around the room and replaced the paper. Then he just went on from there. That was... slightly impressive.. ;-)
-Tor
When it's technical, no voice is needed, and I generally don't internalize it, or maybe small bits, depending.
I know the source of that habit of sometimes internalizing, and it was theater, where memorizing lines was much easier, done "in character", with that inner voice adding emotional content to the text, creating more associations for better recall later on. I'll actually internalize the other actors voices for their parts, able to hear it "as it would be said", instead of just knowing it as the words to be said.
Edit: That the processing problem again. One either pays now or later with theater. If the stuff is just read, without the vocalizations, on stage then the trigger words must be parsed and such before line delivery. Mistakes happen, unless one is paying close attention. On the other hand, internalizing it associates the trigger words and such right then. Easier on-stage, as the conversation has already happened! I can't easily take it in real time, so the prep has to be done, and that's often why people will script read. Those associations need to form. Less than real time delivery appears flat and contrived, which generally isn't immersive and not entertaining as intended, though it might be entertaining to watch the various players struggle...
My own experience was learning to read through several influences before formal school. I got sick, and we had a move, which resulted in my skipping the core lessons, and they never fully solidified. What you wrote here resonates with that experience very well, as I can recall that basic conflict over the "how" it's done, and since I could read well, I generally didn't pay much attention. Maybe it's good I didn't!
Yeah, slow rate morse is HARD. My first training was on 5 WPM, and I found it very difficult. Later on, the code was delivered at the 20 WPM rate, but 5 WPM spacing. Much easier. Completely agreed. The FCC test I took split this, delivering 5 WPM spacing, with something like 10 WPM rate. Moderate difficulty for me.
There aren't many "make blocks of it" styles I've liked. Yours rocks. Very clear, fun to read.
I seldom hear words/dialog, but mostly my reading style was fairly well described by the author character in the Steven King book, "Misery" (don't read this one unless you really have no other choice...like watching the proverbial train wreck while a passenger on it) where the author does not actually know he is typing the story, rather he falls into it and it happens all around him. He does not hear the keys, or hear words, rather absorbs or experiences them and then sees he has filled some pages.
At one time between schools in the service I had access to a reading lab for nearly a month and had topped out over 1k words / min with over 80% comprehension and retention. Probably less than half that by now, but a good Heinlein, Clancy, Baldacci, or King can be a late nighter depending on how into it I am. Thank god for Half-Price Books and Goodwill/Salvation Army stores, amazing what you find! The Stand uncut with all the edits restored actually took a few days.
In the fourth grade when we had that silly SRA reading system, I would Smile off the teacher by pulling the reading from the gold / silver end just to read something I wanted rather than what they wanted me to read because I would be bored ###$%less. Wasn't supposed to be reading those, but did they ever question it??? Nah......
Frank
01-Paperboy - Mark Cooksey - 1986
02-Enforcer - Markus Siebold - 1992
03-Robocop - Jonathan Dunn - 1988
04-Nemesis the Warlock - Rob Hubbard - 1987
05-Arkanoid - Martin Galway - 1987
06-Flimbos Quest - Reyn Ouwehand & J. Bjerregaard - 1990
07-Batman The Movie - Matthew Cannon - 1989
08-Ghosts n Goblins - Mark Cooksey - 1986
09-The Hobbit - Neil Brennan - 1985
10-Parallax - Martin Galway - 1986
11-Cauldron II - Richard Joseph - 1986
12-Midnight Resistance - Keith Tinman - 1990
13-Castle of Terror - Neil Brennan - 1985
14-Rolling Ronny - Markus Schneider - 1991
15-Ocean Loader 2 - Martin Galway - 1985
16-Master of Magic - Rob Hubbard 1985
17-California Games - Chris Grigg - 1987
18-Boulder Dash - Peter Liepa - 1984
19-LED Storm - Tim Follin - 1989
20-Terrys Big Adventure - Allister Brimble - 1989
21-Ocean Loader 5 - Jonathan Dunn - 1988
22-Pitfall II-Lost Caverns - Tim Shotter - 1983
23-Aztec Challenge - Paul Norman - 1984
24-Bubble Bobble - Peter Clarke - 1987
25-Cobra - Ben Daglish - 1986
26-Jackal - Mark Cooksey - 1987
27-Yie Ar Kung Fu - Martin Galway - 1985
28-PP Hammer - Thomas Detert - 1991
29-Night Breed - Matthew Cannon - 1990
30-Head Over Heels - Peter Clarke - 1987
31-Krakout - Ben Daglish - 1987
32-Shadow of the Beast - Fredrik Segerfalk - 1990
33-Comic Bakery - Martin Galway - 1986
34-Cool World - Gerard Gourley - 1992
35-Bionic Commando - Tim Follin - 1988
36-Daley Thompsons Decathlon - David Dunn & Martin Galway - 1984
37-Rick Dangerous II - Dave Pridmore - 1990
38-Firefly - Fred Gray - 1988
39-Ghouls n Ghosts - Tim Follin - 1989
40-Forbidden Forest - Paul Norman - 1983
41-Kikstart II - Shaun Southern - 1987
42-Gauntlet III - Tim Follin - 1992
43-Power Drift - Dave Lowe - 1989
44-Commando - Rob Hubbard - 1985
45-Speedball - David Whittaker - 1989
46-Last Ninja - Ben Daglish & Anthony Lees - 1987
47-X-Out - Michael Hendriks - 1989
48-Golden Axe - Jeroen Tel - 1990
49-International Karate - Rob Hubbard - 1986
50-Storm - David Whittaker - 1986
51-Spy Hunter - ???? - 1983
52-Crazy Comets - Rob Hubbard - 1985
53-1942 - Mark Cooksey -1986
54-Cybernoid - Jeroen Tel - 1988
55-Last Ninja 3 - Reyn Ouwehand - 1991
56-Monty on the Run - Rob Hubbard - 1985
57-Bruce Lee - John A. Fitzpatrick - 1983
58-Great Giana Sisters - Chris Huelsbeck - 1987
59-R-Type - Chris H
When I read, I do hear the "inner voice," but I can also read many times faster than I, or almost anyone for that matter, can talk. My eyes don't track a word at a time, but I still hear voices, especially when reading a story with characters.
In elementary school, I often had trouble in English class, because I couldn't read slow enough to keep up with the class as they were reading.
Pretty sure I got it from watching the TV late night from the bedroom through the mirror... Was supposed to be bedtime, and for a considerable time, nobody picked up on the "but I need the door open" rationale. They ran the sound high enough to enjoy the programming. So I would go to bed easily, laying there with one eye, or sometimes both open just enough to watch the show, but not so far that I would get caught easily. After a time, reading the words just happened, and I didn't even notice.
Reviewing printed documents isn't happening as much for me these days. We will use a screen so everybody can see. When I do this, I'll often sit across from somebody else and just read it upside down. Every once in a while, I'll get stuck on something, but not often. Errors in spacing and style seem to show much better too. Handwritten things in script are very difficult to read upside down.