ArticleScientific reports2026
Exploring how textual complexity affects cognitive load during reading: an eye-tracking study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reading constitutes a fundamental component of learning, and understanding cognitive load during reading is important both for explaining how learners engage with text and for enhancing the effectiveness of learning. The primary aim of this study is to examine how manipulated text complexity conditions influence eye-movement behavior, in order to better understand how readers' gaze patterns reflect increases or decreases in cognitive load. Specifically, the study investigates whether key metrics (fixations, regressions, pupil area) and the behavioral indicator of reading duration differ systematically between easy and hard texts. The study examines how textual complexity affects cognitive load during reading using eye-tracking. The study included 33 university students (18 female, 15 male; M age = 35.6, SD = 12.4), all native Czech speakers. Participants completed a counterbalanced repeated-measures reading task in Czech in which text complexity was experimentally manipulated across lexical, syntactic, and semantic dimensions. Eye-movement data were collected during reading to capture behavioral patterns typically linked to variations in cognitive load, and participants subsequently provided self-reports of perceived mental effort using the NASA-TLX. Results showed that texts with greater complexity led to more fixations, more regressions, and longer reading durations, indicating higher cognitive load. NASA-TLX ratings likewise indicated greater perceived effort for the higher-complexity condition. However, pupillary metrics showed no meaningful differences between conditions. Overall, the findings suggest that gaze-based eye-tracking metrics are sensitive indicators of cognitive demand, while pupillary responses depend on specific experimental conditions.
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.