Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42230464›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026

Saccade length consistency during reading and shape-scanning.

Thomas Fabian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Thomas FabianDepartment of History and Social Sciences, Technical University of Darmstadt, Residenzschloss 1, 64283, Darmstadt, Germany. thomas.fabian@tu-darmstadt.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4024-066X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human gaze behaviour provides insights into the mental processes underlying the execution of a task. As reading involves visual sampling and language processing, various studies investigate how the linguistic information of texts influences visual behaviour. However, established measures of human visual behaviour are dependent on the exact configuration of the text stimuli and the nonlinguistic stimuli used for comparison, leaving systematic stimulus-independent differences largely unknown. Here, we show that relative saccade length distributions reveal similarities and differences in gaze dynamics during reading and shape-scanning. In a within-subject design, participants read texts and scanned a spatially matched array of geometric shapes. We find that the lengths of consecutive saccades in target direction are more consistent during reading than during shape-scanning, suggesting that saccadic planning is more constrained during reading. The consistency of eye movements opposite to the target direction does not differ for the experimental conditions. These results consolidate findings from neurocognitive studies on the vision-language interface and suggest how underlying neural structures manifest themselves in observable visual behaviour. Furthermore, the results indicate that relative saccade lengths could present a new measure for investigating how linguistic processing influences human visual behaviour during reading. More broadly, the results suggest that analysing gaze behaviour dynamics via relative saccade lengths might provide novel insights into similarities and differences across tasks.

Indexed as

AttentionForm PerceptionPattern Recognition, VisualReadingSaccadesAdultFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMaleYoung AdultEye movements and visual attentionReadingVisual search

Identifiers

PMID42230464
PMCPMC13230309

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.