Believe it, or not

Jul 9, 2004

This is gettting around, by e-mail and even in at least one printed publication (Before&After p. 3, offline):


Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

Problem is, no one offers a citation of such research, and while I’ve found a blog comment about associative logic, I can’t find much else to back it up. Any educators care to weigh in on the truth of this? Or, is it a clever hoax?

[Edit 2/23/05: Jason Griffey points to Reading Between the Letters.]

Anton Zuiker

© 2000 Zuiker Chronicles Publishing, LLC