ArticleJournal of vision2023
Test-retest reliability of eye tracking measures in a computerized Trail Making Test.
Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eye Dominance and Testing Order Effects in the Circularly-Oriented Macular Pigment Optical Density Measurements.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Ageing modulates the effects of scene complexity on visual search and target selection in virtual environments.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Latest clinical frontiers related to autism diagnostic strategies.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Review
- Performance of the digital trail making test in older adults with white matter lesions.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- On the role of visual feedback and physiotherapist-patient interaction in robot-assisted gait training: an eye-tracking and HD-EEG study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Warning signals only support the first action in a sequence.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Trail Making Test (TMT) is a frequently applied neuropsychological test that evaluates participants' executive functions based on their time to connect a sequence of numbers (TMT-A) or alternating numbers and letters (TMT-B). Test performance is associated with various cognitive functions ranging from visuomotor speed to working memory capabilities. However, although the test can screen for impaired executive functioning in a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders, it provides only little information about which specific cognitive impairments underlie performance detriments. To resolve this lack of specificity, recent cognitive research combined the TMT with eye tracking so that eye movements could help uncover reasons for performance impairments. However, using eye-tracking-based test scores to examine differences between persons, and ultimately apply the scores for diagnostics, presupposes that the reliability of the scores is established. Therefore, we investigated the test-retest reliabilities of scores in an eye-tracking version of the TMT recently introduced by Recker et al. (2022). We examined two healthy samples performing an initial test and then a retest 3 days (n = 31) or 10 to 30 days (n = 34) later. Results reveal that, although reliabilities of classic completion times were overall good, comparable with earlier versions, reliabilities of eye-tracking-based scores ranged from excellent (e.g., durations of fixations) to poor (e.g., number of fixations guiding manual responses). These findings indicate that some eye-tracking measures offer a strong basis for assessing interindividual differences beyond classic behavioral measures when examining processes related to information accumulation processes but are less suitable to diagnose differences in eye-hand coordination.
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.