Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31329614›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Linguistic processes do not beat visuo-motor constraints, but they modulate where the eyes move regardless of word boundaries: Evidence against top-down word-based eye-movement control during reading.

Claire Albrengues, Frédéric Lavigne, Carlos Aguilar, Eric Castet, Françoise Vitu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Saccade length consistency during reading and shape-scanning.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Feedback beyond accuracy: Using eye-tracking to detect comprehensibility and interest during reading.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Claire AlbrenguesUniversité Côte d'Azur, CNRS, BCL (Bases, Corpus, Langage), Nice, France.
Frédéric LavigneUniversité Côte d'Azur, CNRS, BCL (Bases, Corpus, Langage), Nice, France.
Carlos AguilarLab by MANTU, Amaris Research Unit, Biot, France.
Eric CastetAix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, LPC (Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive), Fédération de Recherche 3C, Marseille, France.
Françoise VituAix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, LPC (Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive), Fédération de Recherche 3C, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0627-8295

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Where readers move their eyes, while proceeding forward along lines of text, has long been assumed to be determined in a top-down word-based manner. According to this classical view, readers of alphabetic languages would invariably program their saccades towards the center of peripheral target words, as selected based on the (expected) needs of ongoing (word-identification) processing, and the variability in within-word landing positions would exclusively result from systematic and random errors. Here we put this predominant hypothesis to a strong test by estimating the respective influences of language-related variables (word frequency and word predictability) and lower-level visuo-motor factors (word length and saccadic launch-site distance to the beginning of words) on both word-skipping likelihood and within-word landing positions. Our eye-movement data were collected while forty participants read 316 pairs of sentences, that differed only by one word, the prime; this was either semantically related or unrelated to a following test word of variable frequency and length. We found that low-level visuo-motor variables largely predominated in determining which word would be fixated next, and where in a word the eye would land. In comparison, language-related variables only had tiny influences. Yet, linguistic variables affected both the likelihood of word skipping and within-word initial landing positions, all depending on the words' length and how far on average the eye landed from the word boundaries, but pending the word could benefit from peripheral preview. These findings provide a strong case against the predominant word-based account of eye-movement guidance during reading, by showing that saccades are primarily driven by low-level visuo-motor processes, regardless of word boundaries, while being overall subject to subtle, one-off, language-based modulations. Our results also suggest that overall distributions of saccades' landing positions, instead of truncated within-word landing-site distributions, should be used for a better understanding of eye-movement guidance during reading.

Indexed as

LinguisticsReadingVocabularyAdultAgedEye MovementsHumansLinear ModelsMiddle AgedMotor ActivityProbabilityVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31329614
PMCPMC6645505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.