ArticleJournal of eye movement research2020
Reading Russian poetry: An expert-novice study.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eye Movement and Recall of Visual Elements in Eco-friendly Product.Journal of eye movement research · 2024Article
- An Eye Tracking Based Framework for Safety Improvement of Offshore Operations.Journal of eye movement research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studying the role of expertise in poetry reading, we hypothesized that poets' expert knowledge comprises genre-appropriate reading- and comprehension strategies that are re-flected in distinct patterns of reading behavior. We recorded eye movements while two groups of native speakers (n=10 each) read selected Russian poetry: an expert group of professional poets who read poetry daily, and a control group of novices who read poetry less than once a month. We conducted mixed-effects re-gression analyses to test for effects of group on first-fixation durations, first-pass gaze du-rations, and total reading times per word while controlling for lexical- and text variables. First-fixation durations exclusively reflected lexical features, and total reading times re-flected both lexical- and text variables; only first-pass gaze durations were additionally mod-ulated by readers' level of expertise. Whereas gaze durations of novice readers became faster as they progressed through the poems, and differed between line-final words and non-final ones, poets retained a steady pace of first-pass reading throughout the poems and within verse lines. Additionally, poets' gaze durations were less sensitive to word length. We conclude that readers' level of expertise modulates the way they read poetry. Our find-ings support theories of literary comprehension that assume distinct processing modes which emerge from prior experience with literary texts.
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.