ArticleJournal of eye movement research2024
Reading comics: The effect of expertise on eye movements.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The theory of expertise suggests that there should be observable differences in the eye movement patterns between experts and non-experts. Previous studies have investigated how expertise influences eye movement patterns during cognitive tasks like reading. However, the impact of expertise on eye movements in comics, a multimodal form of text, remains unexplored. This article reports on a study that uses eye tracking to examine patterns in the ways that experts and non-experts read comics. Expert participants (14) with experience in reading comics than non-expert participants (17). When controlling for variables such as layout and text quantity, we found significant differences in visual scanning between experts and non-experts. Experts exhibited more frequent saccades and greater amplitude of saccades. Further analysis revealed distinct strategies in processing text and image content between the two groups: the interaction between expertise level and content type in specific AOI showed significant differences across multiple visual measurement metrics, including Average duration of fixations, number of fixations, and number of saccades within AOI. These findings not only support the applicability of the expertise level theory in the field of comic reading but also provide a new perspective for understanding the reading processing of multimodal 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.