ArticleBehavior research methods2025
The Beijing Sentence Corpus II: A cross-script comparison between traditional and simplified Chinese sentence reading.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eye-tracking-while-reading: A living survey of datasets with open library support.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Enhanced near‑foveal sensitivity in older Chinese readers: Evidence from the moving-window paradigm.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Aging Reduces the Efficiency of Parafoveal Lexical Activation During Chinese Sentence Reading.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Reading fluency and word segmentation agreement modulate the benefits of word boundary cues for older readers in traditional Chinese.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The Corpus of Bidirectional Reading of Traditional Chinese Text: An Extension of the Multilingual Eye-Movement Corpus.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Wave 2 of the Multilingual Eye-Movement Corpus (MECO): New text reading data across languages.Scientific data · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce a sentence corpus with eye-movement data in traditional Chinese (TC), based on the original Beijing Sentence Corpus (BSC) in simplified Chinese (SC). The most noticeable difference between TC and SC character sets is their visual complexity. There are reaction time corpora in isolated TC character/word lexical decision and naming tasks. However, up to now natural TC sentence reading corpus with recorded eye movements has not been available for general public. We report effects of word frequency, visual complexity, and predictability on eye movements on fixation location and duration based on 60 native TC readers. In addition, because the current BSC-II sentences are nearly identical to the original BSC sentences, we report similarities and differences of the linguistic influences on eye movements for the two varieties of written Chinese. The results shed light on how visual complexity affects eye movements. Together, the two sentence corpora comprise a useful tool to establish cross-script similarities and differences in TC and SC.
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.