Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42352874›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

An Eye-Tracking Study on Text Accessibility and Comprehension in University Students.

Sergio Navas-León, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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

2 authors.

Sergio Navas-LeónCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Department of Education, Universidad Nebrija, 28043 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0889-8252
Jon Andoni DuñabeitiaCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Department of Education, Universidad Nebrija, 28043 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3312-8559

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación PID2024-161331NB-I00Fundación Ramón Areces "Accesibilidad lingüística en la web: investigación psicolingüística para la implementación de la Lec-tura Fácil"
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Easy-to-Read (E2R) recommendations aim to improve accessibility, but it remains unclear whether some visual and typographic adaptations may also benefit readers without disabilities. This study examined the effects of different text formats on reading comprehension and visual processing in university students using eye-tracking. Twenty-four young adults without cognitive disabilities read texts presented in three formats: hard-to-read, control, and Easy-to-Read. Reading comprehension was assessed with multiple-choice questions, and eye movements were recorded during reading. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Text Format significantly affected reading comprehension, with estimated accuracy highest in the E2R format and significantly higher than in the hard-to-read format. The E2R format was also associated with shorter fixation durations and larger saccades than the other formats, suggesting a pattern compatible with a reduced cognitive demand in some eye-movement measures. Fixation count was highest for hard-to-read texts and significantly higher than in the control format, whereas differences involving E2R were not significant. Reading time showed a trend towards significance, with descriptively longer reading times for hard-to-read texts than for the control and E2R formats. These findings suggest that E2R adaptations, originally developed to support populations with cognitive needs, may also facilitate comprehension and reading efficiency in readers without cognitive disabilities.

Indexed as

accessibilityadultscognitioneducationreadinguniversity

Identifiers

PMID42352874
PMCPMC13296324

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.