ArticleHeliyon2020
Eye closed learning time by Japanese during an English examination.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo examine the difference of eye closed learning (iCLOL) time (time during which vision is not required), and the interblink interval (IBI), depending on the learning content, in order to consider the possibility of applying iCLOL to learning.
methodsTo examine iCLOL time during the listening, writing, and reading sections of an English examination, 19 Japanese subjects were asked to close their eyes whenever it did not interfere with their responses to the examination. Their eyes were video recorded with a video camera, and iCLOL time and the IBI were compared.
resultsThe percentage of iCLOL time during the listening, writing, and reading sections of the examination was 50.7 ± 10.9%, 8.0 ± 6.5%, and 0.9 ± 1.0%, respectively with significant differences among the three. The iCLOL frequency during the listening, writing, and reading sections was 1.64 ± 0.54 times/min, 0.67 ± 0.50 times/min, and 0.26 ± 0.29 times/min, respectively, with significant differences among the three. The IBI during the listening, writing, and reading sections was 3.7 ± 1.7 s, 3.7 ± 1.6 s, and 5.0 ± 2.1 s, respectively; it was significantly shorter for listening and writing than for reading.
conclusioniCLOL time was observed during the English examination, the percentage and frequency of which differed depending on the examination content. At times during the examination when the iCLOL time percentage and frequency were greater, the IBI was shorter. These results suggest that iCLOL may be applied as a method during learning.
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.