ArticleBehavior research methods2025
How low can you go? Tracking eye movements during reading at different sampling rates.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Gaze behaviors during forehand clear and backhand driving in badminton: a comparison between beginner, intermediate and expert players.BMC psychology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Eye-movement research has revolutionized our understanding of reading, but the use of eye-tracking techniques in investigating the reading process is still limited by the cost of high-precision eye-tracking, which limits research to laboratories with sufficient resources. It is important to evaluate to what extent cognitive processes during reading can be measured with less expensive eye-tracking devices. One such way may be to use devices with a lower sampling rate, which are much less expensive than high-sampling rate eye-trackers. We recorded readers' eye movements during reading at different sampling rates and show that it is possible to measure the classic effect of word frequency on fixation duration, reflecting ongoing cognitive processing during reading, at sampling rates ranging from 250 to 2000 Hz. We simulate even lower sampling rates and show that, with a sufficiently large sample size, it is possible to detect the effect of word frequency even at very low sampling rates (30-125 Hz). Our results demonstrate that, in principle, low sampling rates are not an obstacle to studying the effects of cognitive processing during reading.
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.