In the same study, Goldstein also presented materials for reading at different rates using a moving picture projection technique to control rate of appearance of the printed text. For the same rates-1 00, 137, 174, 211, 248, 285, and 322 wpm-comprehension scores decreased as 10.6, 10.1, 10.1, 9.8, 9.4, 9.1,8.7. It should be noted that the auding and reading comprehension scores are quite similar, and that both auding and reading scores decrease with increasing rates of presentation.

Jester and Travers (1966) presented passages for auding and reading at rates of 150, 200, 250, 300, and 350 wpm. For auding, their college students had mean retention comprehension raw scores of 14.7, 14.2, 7.3, 4.9, and 5.2 respectively. Corresponding reading scores were 15.5, 10.8, 9.1, 10.1, and 5.9. It is clear that at the fastest rate (350 wpm) auding and reading scores are comparable, while at 300 wpm reading is clearly superior to auding'(10.1 to 4.9). On the other hand, auding surpassed reading at 200 wpm. At best then, these data are inconclusive. It seems unlikely that reading would be more effective than auding at 300 wpm, less effective at 200 wpm, and equally effective at 150 wpm-especially since both Mowbray (1953) and more recently Young (1973) found no differences in college students' auding and reading retention comprehension scores when materials were presented at 175 wpm, with reading rates being paced by moving displays of print as in Goldstein's study. Perhaps discrepancies between Goldstein's work and that of Jester and Travers relate in some way to the fact that the latter researchers used slide projection to present non-moving print displays. Whatever the case, it is clear that at the fastest rate- 350 wpm-Jester and Travers found auding and reading performance to be comparable. Thus there is no indication of great differences in rate of languaging favoring reading.

Carver (1973c) presents the most analytic discussion of the relationship between auding and reading rates found by these reviewers. He presented auding and reading passages to 108 college students at rates ranging from 75 to 450 wpm. Actually, reading rate was not directly manipulated; rather, time for reading was limited to the duration needed to present the passages for auding, a methodological point which will bear on Carver's findings described in the following paragraphs.