ArticleCognitive science2025
Is Comprehension in Comics More Effective Than in Traditional Texts in Skilled Adult Readers? An Eye Movement-Based Study.
Article in Cognitive science, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading comprehension has been mostly studied using traditional texts and very little is known about reading comprehension in comics. We wanted to find out whether comics could enhance comprehension processes, compared to traditional text and what cognitive processes might be involved in this effect. Furthermore, we explored the functional role of pictures in understanding comics. Forty skilled readers read the comic and text versions of two already published stories and answered comprehension questions. Eye movements were recorded during reading. We found no differences in reading comprehension performance. However, comics were explored faster than traditional texts. Importantly, reading speed of words in balloons was faster than in traditional texts. An analysis of eye movements suggests that the presence of pictures facilitates the extraction of information, with shorter total saccadic amplitude on the pages of comics than in text. When reading comics, participants spent less time on the pictures than the balloons, and this behavior was associated with shorter and fewer fixations. Pictures were also used as an entry point for reading a panel, as the first fixation in the panel fell more frequently on the pictures and the readers returned to them more often than to the balloons. Because pictures are processed faster than words, they may be used to construct a first representation of the content of the story, which can be used to facilitate the processing of the whole story and, more specifically, of its verbal component. This strategy is not available in traditional 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.