SynthesisMemory & cognition2026
Eye-movement markers of mind wandering during reading: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mind wandering during reading has been extensively investigated, with multiple studies reporting differences in eye-movement behavior between mind-wandering and on-task reading. More recently, researchers have tried to use eye-movement measures to predict mind wandering during reading; however such indicators of mind wandering during reading have not yet been clearly identified. This article presents results from two studies. Firstly, we carried out a meta-analysis to identify eye-movement indicators of mind wandering during reading. From the initial search, abstracts from 140 articles were reviewed for eligibility, and 39 articles were included for full text reading and data extraction. Finally, we identified 16 individual datasets from 19 articles for which we could compute effect sizes. We calculated effect sizes for nine eye-movement measures: mean fixation duration, fixations count, first-fixation duration, gaze duration, total reading time, saccade length, skipping, blink count, and inter-word regressions. The results indicated that readers skipped more words and made fewer fixations during mind-wandering compared to on-task reading. Following these results, we carried out exploratory analyses with a dataset from our own lab to examine other possible explanations for this eye-movement pattern. Specifically, we investigated readers' sensitivity to word frequency and length and readers' use of corrective regressions. Results indicated that readers show reduced effects of word length and frequency on skipping behavior as well as a reduced use of corrective regressions during mind-wandering compared to on-task reading. Results and implications from both studies are discussed in the context of mind-wandering and reading research.
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.