Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37594452›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

Test-retest reliability of eye tracking measures in a computerized Trail Making Test.

Lukas Recker, Christian H Poth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Warning signals only support the first action in a sequence.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lukas ReckerNeuro-Cognitive Psychology and Center for Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Christian H PothNeuro-Cognitive Psychology and Center for Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Bielefeld University · DEORCID · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CognitionEye-Tracking TechnologyHumansNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsTrail Making Test

Identifiers

PMID37594452
PMCPMC10445213
OpenAlexW4385969214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.