Measured, not claimed.

In 2022, the ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences examined Bionic Reading® with eye-tracking at its IUED Institute of Translation and Interpreting. The project was funded by Innosuisse, the Swiss Innovation Agency.
The result that matters is not speed. It is how much readers kept.

The key figure.

Readers of the Bionic Reading® text scored 11.75 points in the comprehension test. Readers of the same text in a normal typeface scored 9.83 points.
That is 19.5 per cent more. The ZHAW highlights presentation calls this result “deutlich besser” – clearly better.

What the study did not find.

Reading speed was 191.28 words per minute with Bionic Reading® and 189.14 without. The study found no significant difference, and we do not claim one.
Bionic Reading® is often described as a way to read faster. That is not what the measurement shows, and it is not what the method is for. The eye is guided, the brain is relieved of part of the deciphering, and what is freed up goes into understanding. Readers do not race through the text. They keep more of it.

What the eye-tracking suggests.

The average number of fixations was markedly higher on the Bionic Reading® texts than on the normal text. This could indicate that the method changes how information is taken in.
The ZHAW is explicit that this may also be a chance distribution, because no two eye-tracking samples per participant were available. It needs to be confirmed in further research.

What takes getting used to.

For 58 per cent of participants the text treatment was noticeable or felt “odd” at the start of reading. For 42 per cent of all participants it faded during the reading process until they stopped noticing it, and for a further 17 per cent it faded partly.
We say this openly because it matches what readers tell us: Bionic Reading® does not work on the first three lines. The eye needs a few texts to settle into the fixation points.
Among the participants who noticed a change in their reading behaviour, 71 per cent described it positively – more fluent reading, less rereading, and in part the same or better grasp of the text.

How the study was done.

Twelve Bachelor students of Applied Linguistics at the ZHAW, recruited because they read demanding texts on screen regularly. Eleven women, one man. January and February 2022, in the usability laboratory in Winterthur.
Each participant read two texts, one prepared with Bionic Reading® and one left in the original, one on a desktop PC and one on a tablet. All parameters were randomised. After each text, eight content questions were answered aloud. Reading was recorded by screen capture; on the desktop PC the eye movements were recorded with a stationary eye-tracker.

The ZHAW describes this work as a pilot study that found “einige Anhaltspunkte” – several indications – that Bionic Reading® can improve how information is processed. We quote it the way it is written.

Project: “Leseeffizienz messen: Bionic Reading + Eyetracking”
Authors: Birgit Fuhrmann, Martin Schuler, Felix Steiner
Institution: ZHAW IUED Institute of Translation and Interpreting
Funding: Innosuisse, Innovation Cheque no. 58811.1 INNO-ICT
Completed: 23 March 2022, final report 8 April 2022

What this study does not cover – and what comes next.

The twelve participants did not have ADHD, dyslexia or any other condition that makes reading difficult. Everything on this page was measured with people who already read well and read a lot.
We hear something different from our readers. People worldwide with ADHD and with dyslexia describe a significant improvement in reading and in understanding texts set in Bionic Reading®. That feedback comes from practice, not from this study, and we keep the two apart deliberately.
The ZHAW itself proposes closing that gap. In its outlook, the final report names a study with a different target group – “insbesondere bei Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen, die das Lesen erschweren, wie etwa Dyslexie oder Legasthenie” – as the research question that follows from this one. It also recommends a long-term study of the habituation and training effect. That is our next step. The group that struggles with reading is where we see the greatest effect, and it is the group for which no measurement exists yet.

A note on language.

The two ZHAW documents are written in German. The findings on this page are the same findings, in English – so you do not need the German originals to understand what was measured. For readers who want more detail, we have prepared an English summary of both documents.
The English summary was written by us, not by the ZHAW. Where it quotes the study, the German wording is given alongside. The German report remains the authoritative source.