SynthesisJournal of Parkinson's disease2024
Naturalistic Eye Movement Tasks in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recent advances (2022-2024) in eye-tracking for Parkinson's disease: a promising tool for diagnosing and monitoring symptoms.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Eye-Tracking Assessment of Visual, Oculomotor, and Pupillary Biomarkers During Reading in Parkinson's Disease.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Eye-tracking phenotypes reveal clinically meaningful heterogeneity of attention and executive control dysfunction after stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- EYE movement abnormalities in Parkinson's disease: optometric screening and rehabilitation.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2026Review
- Eye Tracking in Parkinson's Disease: A Review of Oculomotor Markers and Clinical Applications.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eye tracking assessments in the laboratory have previously highlighted clear differences in eye movements between Parkinson's disease (PD) and healthy aging. However, laboratory-based eye movement tasks are artificial and limit the ecological validity of observed results. Eye movement tasks utilizing more naturalistic scenarios may provide more accurate insight into cognitive function but research in this area is limited. Objective: This systematic review aims to ascertain what naturalistic tasks have revealed about oculomotor deficits in PD and what this information may help us understand about the underlying sensorimotor and cognitive processes. Methods: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, a literature search of PsycInfo, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted using predetermined search terms. Articles including both individuals with PD and healthy older adults completing eye tracking tasks involving naturalistic eye movements (e.g., reading, video-watching, unrestricted visual search) or naturalistic stimuli were included. Results: After screening, 30 studies were identified as matching the inclusion criteria. Results revealed consistent findings across tasks, including longer fixation durations and smaller saccadic amplitudes in PD compared to healthy aging. However, inconsistencies in the literature and a lack of standardization in tasks limit interpretation of these results. Conclusions: Naturalistic eye movement tasks highlight some consistent differences in eye movements between people with PD and healthy aging. However, future research should expand the current literature in this area and strive towards standardization of naturalistic tasks that can preferably be conducted remotely.
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.