Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41703154›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

The fundamentals of eye tracking part 6: Working with areas of interest.

Ignace T C Hooge, Marcus Nyström, Diederick C Niehorster, Richard Andersson, Tom Foulsham, Antje Nuthmann, Roy S Hessels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Ignace T C HoogeExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. i.hooge@uu.nl.
Marcus NyströmLund University Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Diederick C NiehorsterLund University Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Richard AnderssonTobii AB, Danderyd, Sweden.
Tom FoulshamDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Antje NuthmannInstitute of Psychology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Roy S HesselsExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers use area of interest (AOI) analyses to interpret eye-tracking data. This article addresses four key aspects of AOI use: 1) how to report AOIs to support replicable analyses, 2) how to interpret AOI-related statistics, 3) methods for generating both static and dynamic AOIs, and 4) recent developments and future directions in AOI use. The article underscores the importance of aligning AOI design with the study's conceptual and methodological foundations. It argues that critical decisions, such as the size, shape, and placement of AOIs, should be made early in the experimental design process and should involve eye-tracking data quality, the research question, participant tasks, and the nature of the visual stimulus. It also evaluates recent advances in AOI automation, outlining both their benefits and limitations. The article's main message is that researchers should plan AOIs carefully and explain their choices openly so others can replicate the work.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsEye-Tracking TechnologyResearch DesignHumansArea of interestEye trackingOperationalization

Identifiers

PMID41703154
PMCPMC12913287

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.