ArticlePloS one2023
Effect of habitual reading direction on saccadic eye movements: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- How Long and How We Judge Age: A Cross-Racial and Cross-Gender Eye-Tracking Investigation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
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
Cognitive processes can influence the characteristics of saccadic eye movements. Reading habits, including habitual reading direction, also affect cognitive and visuospatial processes, favouring attention to the side where reading begins. Few studies have investigated the effect of habitual reading direction on saccade directionality of low-cognitive-demand stimuli (such as dots). The current study examined horizontal prosaccade, antisaccade, and self-paced saccade in subjects with two primary habitual reading directions. We hypothesised that saccades responding to the stimuli in subject's habitual reading direction would show a longer prosaccade latency and lower antisaccade error rate (errors being a reflexive glance to a sudden-appearing target, rather than a saccade away from it). Sixteen young Chinese participants with primary habitual reading direction from left to right and sixteen young Arabic and Persian participants with primary habitual reading direction from right to left were recruited. All subjects spoke/read English as their second language. Subjects needed to look towards a 5°/10° target in the prosaccade task or look towards the mirror image location of the target in the antisaccade task and look between two 10° targets in the self-paced saccade task. Only Arabic and Persian participants showed a shorter and directional prosaccade latency towards 5° stimuli against their habitual reading direction. No significant effect of reading direction on antisaccade latency towards the correct directions was found. Chinese readers were found to generate significantly shorter prosaccade latencies and higher antisaccade directional errors compared with Arabic and Persian readers for stimuli appearing at their habitual reading side. The present pilot study provides insights into the effect of reading habits on saccadic eye movements of low-cognitive-demand stimuli and offers a platform for future studies to investigate the relationship between reading habits and eye movement behaviours.
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.