Reading Aloud Improves Proofreading (but Using Sans Forgetica Font Does Not)

Cassandra Cushing, Glen E. Bodner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


Proofreading is an important cognitive skill, yet methods for enhancing error detection have received little research attention. We report two experiments comparing the efficacy of proofreading aloud (i.e., “production”)—a common proofreading tip—versus in a disfluent font (Sans Forgetica) purported to introduce a desirable difficulty. Participants read eight short texts silently, eight aloud, and eight in the disfluent font—and recorded the noncontextual errors (i.e., typos) and contextual errors (i.e., grammar, word choice) that they detected. Relative to silent reading, proofreading aloud improved detection of both types of errors, whereas the disfluent font impaired detection of noncontextual errors and did not aid detection of contextual errors. Metacognitively, participants did not expect the benefit of reading aloud, whereas they expected the disfluent font to impair proofreading. Proofreading aloud works, and invites further research on how it works, whereas there was no indication that proofreading in a disfluent font is useful

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Early online date17 Mar 2022
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 17 Mar 2022


  • Disfluency
  • Metacognition
  • Production effect
  • Proofreading
  • Sans forgetica font


Dive into the research topics of 'Reading Aloud Improves Proofreading (but Using Sans Forgetica Font Does Not)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this