SynthesisInfancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies
Automated Infant Eye Tracking: A Systematic Historical Review.
Synthesis in Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Automated Infant Eye Tracking: A Systematic Historical Review.Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant StudiesPooled it
- Insights from Eye-Tracking Technology in Infants with or at Risk of a Motor Disability: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated eye tracking has emerged as a powerful method in psychology, and has special benefits when studying infant populations. The field has developed much during the last decades, and while there are numerous reviews on methodological aspects and specific research topics, a general overview of the state and trends of the field has been lacking. That lack leaves the field unguided on several important aspects such as WEIRDness, statistical power and replication issues, unexploited areas of research, and the current status of the field as a whole. We here conducted a systematic review of the complete peer-reviewed English literature on automated eye tracking with children during their first two years of life (793 articles), and extracted dates of publication, author and population geographic affiliation, keywords and sample sizes. The results show that automated eye tracking in infant research is increasingly used, and is accompanied by larger sample sizes, which together suggests improved accessibility. There is a focus on WEIRD populations, and a few broad research topics (methods, language and attention) and specific topics (autism, faces) are dominating the field. The current focus leaves many areas of research understudied, yielding a large potential for more infant eye tracking in the future.
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.