ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Assessing the rereading effect of digital reading through eye movements using artificial neural networks.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the differences in eye movement characteristics between first reading and rereading and to develop a neural network model for classifying these reading practices. The primary goal was to enhance the understanding of rereading identification and provide insights into assessing students' text familiarity. Methods: We compared eye movement metrics during first reading and rereading, focusing on parameters such as total reading time, fixation duration, regression size, regression count, and local eye movement behaviors within areas of interest (AOIs). Pupil size, the proportion of fixation duration, and regression duration within and across lines were also examined. A neural network model was constructed to classify the reading practices based on these metrics. Results: During rereading, students exhibited shorter total reading time, fixation durations, and fewer regression counts compared to first reading. Regression size was longer during rereading. Local eye movement behaviors within AOIs were also reduced. However, pupil size, the proportion of fixation duration, and regression duration within and across lines were not useful in identifying rereading. The neural network model achieved an accuracy of 0.769, precision of 0.774, recall of 0.788, and an F1-score of 0.781. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate distinct eye movement patterns between first reading and rereading, highlighting the effectiveness of certain metrics in differentiating these practices. The neural network model provides a promising tool for rereading identification. These results expand our understanding of rereading behavior and offer valuable insights for assessing students' text familiarity.
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.