Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40568229›Full record

ReviewJournal of eye movement research2025

Trends and Transformations: A Bibliometric Analysis of Eye-Tracking Research in Educational Technology.

Liqi Lai, Baohua Su, Linwei She

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of eye movement research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Liqi LaiModern Education Technology Centre, Jinan University, Zhuhai 519070, China; lailq@jnu.edu.cn.
Baohua SuCollege of Chinese Language and Culture, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3793-9933
Linwei SheInternational Business School, Jinan University, Zhuhai 519070, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study employs bibliometric analysis to provide a comprehensive review of eye-tracking research in the field of educational technology. The study analyzed 374 relevant papers published in 19 high-quality journals from the Web of Science core collection between 2001 and 1 June 2024. The findings reveal research trends, hot topics, and future directions in this field. The findings indicate an upward trend in the application of eye-tracking technology in educational technology, with a significant increase noted after 2014. China, the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands dominate research in this area, contributing to a substantial amount of high-quality research output. Keyword co-occurrence analysis reveals that terms such as "attention," "cognitive load," "information," and "comprehension" are currently hot topics of research. Burst keyword analysis further reveals the evolution of research trends. These trends have shifted from an initial focus on information processing and application studies to a growing emphasis on learner understanding and behavior analysis, ultimately concentrating on learning outcomes and the exploration of emerging technology applications. This study not only provides researchers in the field of educational technology with a comprehensive understanding of the current state of eye-tracking research but also points to future research directions, particularly in optimizing instructional design, enhancing learning outcomes, and exploring the applications of emerging educational technologies using eye-tracking technology.

Indexed as

bibliometric analysiseducational technologyeye trackingresearch trends

Identifiers

PMID40568229
PMCPMC12194545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.