ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Online Eye Tracking for Aphasia: A Feasibility Study Comparing Web and Lab Tracking and Implications for Clinical Use.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2024. 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.
- Eye-Tracking Technologies for Cognitive Assessment After Acquired Brain Injury: Systematic Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsStudies using eye-tracking methodology have made important contributions to the study of language disorders such as aphasia. Nevertheless, in clinical groups especially, eye-tracking studies often include small sample sizes, limiting the generalizability of reported findings. Online, webcam-based tracking offers a potential solution to this issue, but web-based tracking has not been compared with in-lab tracking in past studies and has never been attempted in groups with language impairments. MATERIALS &
methodsPatients with post-stroke aphasia (n = 16) and age-matched controls (n = 16) completed identical sentence-picture matching tasks in the lab (using an EyeLink system) and on the web (using WebGazer.js), with the order of sessions counterbalanced. We examined whether web-based eye tracking is as sensitive as in-lab eye tracking in detecting group differences in sentence processing.
resultsPatients were less accurate and slower to respond to all sentence types than controls. Proportions of gazes to the target and foil picture were computed in 100 ms increments, which showed that the two modes of tracking were comparably sensitive to overall group differences across different sentence types. Web tracking showed comparable fluctuations in gaze proportions to target pictures to lab tracking in most analyses, whereas a delay of approximately 500-800 ms appeared in web compared to lab data. DISCUSSION &
conclusionsWeb-based eye tracking is feasible to study impaired language processing in aphasia and is sensitive enough to detect most group differences between controls and patients. Given that validations of webcam-based tracking are in their infancy and how transformative this method could be to several disciplines, much more testing is warranted.
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.