ArticleScientific reports2025
Unstable foveation's impact on reading, object tracking, and its implications for diagnosing and intervening in reading difficulties.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Visual System Alterations for Identifying Teacher-Reported Academic Difficulties in Schoolchildren: A Machine Learning Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Foveation, the ability to focus on a point for clear vision, is crucial for reading smoothly and tracking moving objects. Research shows that unstable foveation disrupts reading by causing more frequent eye movements. However, it's unclear if this also affects smooth tracking of moving targets in slow readers. This study therefore investigates the link between foveation during reading and the tracking of moving targets, in a large group of participants displaying variable reading speeds in a virtual reality environment. Our analysis shows that slower readers have more intrusive fixational eye movements characterized by greater spatial and temporal variability during reading. Additionally, these readers display less efficient tracking of moving targets. Interestingly, the rate and spatial variability of catch-up saccades during object tracking correlates with fixational eye movement rates and spatial variability during reading. Our findings thus demonstrate that poor foveation stability in slow readers also affects other eye movement activities, such as during object tracking. We conclude with a discussion on the limitations of virtual reality-based reading assessment and the shared mechanisms of foveal stabilization, which might be altered under conditions of reading impairment.
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.