ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Complex network of eye movements during rapid automatized naming.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although the method of visualizing eye-tracking data as a time-series might enhance performance in the understanding of gaze behavior, it has not yet been thoroughly examined in the context of rapid automated naming (RAN). Methods: This study attempted, for the first time, to measure gaze behavior during RAN from the perspective of network-domain, which constructed a complex network [referred to as Results: Findings showed that GCN in each RAN task was assortative and possessed "small-world" and community architecture. Additionally, observations regarding the influence of RAN task types included that: (i) five topological parameters (i.e., average degree, clustering coefficient, assortativity coefficient, modularity, and community number) could reflect the difference between tasks N-num (i.e., naming of numbers) and N-cha (i.e., naming of Chinese characters); (ii) there was only one topological parameter (i.e., network diameter) which could reflect the difference between tasks N-obj (i.e., naming of objects) and N-col (i.e., naming of colors); and (iii) when compared to GCN in alphanumeric RAN, GCN in non-alphanumeric RAN may have higher average degree, global efficiency, and small-worldness, but lower network diameter, characteristic path length, clustering coefficient, and modularity. Findings also illustrated that most of these topological parameters were largely independent of traditional eye-movement metrics. Discussion: This article revealed the architecture and topological parameters of GCN as well as the influence of task types on them, and thus brought some new insights into the understanding of RAN from the perspective of complex network.
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.