ArticlePloS one2025
Why the gaze behavior of expert physicians and novice medical students differ during a simulated medical interview: A mixed methods study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review on the use of virtual patients for enhancing empathy in medical students.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Integration of virtual reality and eye-tracking-based feedback system improves rehabilitation observation skills.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Using virtual patients to enhance empathy in medical students: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human cognition is reflected in gaze behavior, which involves eye movements to fixate or shift focus between areas. In natural interactions, gaze behavior serves two functions: signal transmission and information gathering. While expert gaze as a tool for gathering information has been studied, its underlying cognitive processes remain insufficiently explored. This study investigated differences in gaze behavior and cognition between expert physicians and novice medical students during a simulated medical interview with a simulated patient, drawing implications for medical education. This study employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. During the simulated medical interview, participants' gaze behavior was measured across five areas: the patient's eyes, face, body trunk, medical chart, and medical questionnaire. A hierarchical Bayesian model analyzed differences in gaze behavior between expert physicians and novice medical students. Then, a semi-structured interview was conducted with participants to discern their perceptions during their gaze behavior; their recorded gaze behavior was presented to them, and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Model analyses indicated that experts looked at the simulated patient's eyes less frequently compared to novices during the simulated medical interview. Expert physicians stated that because of the potential for discomfort, looking at the patient's eyes was less frequent, despite its importance for obtaining diagnostic findings. Conversely, novice medical students did not provide narratives for obtaining such findings, but increased the number of times they did so to improve patient satisfaction. This association between different perceptions of gaze behavior may lead to new approaches in medical education. This study highlights the importance of understanding gaze behavior in the context of medical education and suggests that different motivations underlie the gaze behavior of expert physicians and novice medical students. Incorporating training in effective gaze behavior may improve the quality of patient care and medical students' learning outcomes.
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.