ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Eye movement and reading behavior in older adults with dementia.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
backgroundWith the rising number of patients with dementia, it is essential to develop support strategies that incorporate visual information. This study aimed to clarify differences in eye movement patterns when older adults with dementia read documents of varying difficulty, in order to identify strategies for enhancing readability and supporting comprehension.
methodsEye movements were measured using an eye tracker while nine older adults with dementia read documents. Each document had an original version and a revised version, designed to improve readability. Data were compared across document types, original versus revised versions, and aloud versus silent reading. Video recordings were qualitatively analyzed.
resultsIn the comparison of document types, “skipping over” (p = 0.046) and “misreading” (p = 0.050) significantly decreased in documents of lower difficulty. No significant difference was observed between aloud and silent reading. However, among participants who read aloud, the revised version showed significant reductions in reading time (p = 0.028), fixation count (p = 0.046), and regression (p = 0.046). Qualitative analysis yielded three major categories: Response to caregiver support, Reading strategies, and Challenges in using support.
conclusionThe revised documents improved eye movement patterns, suggesting enhanced readability. In addition to text modifications, individualized caregiver support was critical for comprehension. These findings can inform the design of written information for older patients with dementia.
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.