Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41219550›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Quantifying word informativeness and its impact on eye-movement reading behavior: Cross-linguistic variability and individual differences.

Inbal Kimchi, Sascha Schroeder, Noam Siegelman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Inbal KimchiDepartment of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, 9190501, Jerusalem, Israel.
Sascha SchroederInstitute of Psychology, University of Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Noam SiegelmanDepartment of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, 9190501, Jerusalem, Israel. noam.siegelman@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5005-4838

Funding

Azrieli Foundation Early Career Faculty Fellowship to NSIsrael Science Foundation 1034/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance or centrality of a linguistic unit to a larger unit's meaning is known to affect reading behavior. However, there is an ongoing debate on how to quantify a unit's degree of importance or centrality, with previous quantifications using either subjective ratings or computational solutions with limited interpretability. Here we introduce a novel measure, which we term "informativeness", to assess the significance of a word to the meaning of the sentence in which it appears. Our measure is based on the comparison of vectorial representations of the full sentence with a revised sentence without the target word, resulting in an easily interpretable and objective quantification. We show that our new measure correlates in expected ways with other psycholinguistic variables (e.g., frequency, length, predictability), and, importantly, uniquely predicts eye-movement reading behavior in large-scale datasets of first (L1) and second language (L2) readers (from the Multilingual Eye-tracking Corpus, MECO). We also show that the effects of informativeness generalize to diverse writing systems, and are stronger for poorer than better readers. Together, our work provides new avenues for investigating informativeness effects, towards a deeper understanding of the way it impacts reading behavior.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsIndividualityLinguisticsPsycholinguisticsReadingAdultEye-Tracking TechnologyFemaleHumansLanguageMaleMultilingualismYoung AdultCross-linguistic differencesEye movementsIndividual differencesReading

Identifiers

PMID41219550
PMCPMC12605455

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.