Trial reportPloS one2020
Gaze-behaviors of runners in a natural, urban running environment.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Data-Driven Insights into E-Learning: A Comprehensive Review of Eye-Tracking Applications in Learning Systems.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gaze-tracking techniques have advanced our understanding of visual attention and decision making during walking and athletic events, but little is known about how vision influences behavior during running over common, natural obstacles. This study tested hypotheses about whether runners regularly collect visual information and pre-plan obstacle clearance (feedforward control), make improvisational adjustments (online control), or some combination of both. In this study, the gaze profiles of 5 male and 5 female runners, fitted with a telemetric gaze-tracking device, were used to identify the frequency of fixations on an obstacle during a run. Overall, participants fixated on the obstacle 2.4 times during the run, with the last fixation occurring on average between 40% and 80% of the run, suggesting runners potentially shifted from a feedforward planning strategy to an online control strategy during the late portions of the running trial. A negative association was observed between runner velocity and average number of fixations. Consistent with previous studies on visual strategies used during walking, our results indicate that visual attentiveness is part of an important feedforward strategy for runners allowing them to safely approach an obstacle. Thus, visual obstacle attention is a key factor in the navigation of complex, natural landscapes while running.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.