ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026
Phase-Sensitive Gaze Allocation in a Progressive Calligraphy Task.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 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
Eye-movement studies of manual production often average gaze across an entire trial, obscuring how visual information use changes once actions begin. We separated the pre-writing and writing phases in a fixed progressive Chinese calligraphy task. Thirty-seven postgraduate students completed two style-guided transfer (SGT) pages, a worked example, and two evolution-based mapping (EBM) pages; 34 contributed usable gaze data. On SGT pages, reference allocation fell from 0.626 before writing to 0.131 during writing, whereas the share of reference viewing directed to diagnostic tokens rose from 0.473 to 0.601. On EBM pages, allocation to the cue-plus-context display fell from 0.825 to 0.447 after pen onset but remained substantial; cue share and context coverage also declined. Participant-level process blocks did not improve quality models. In exploratory page-level EBM analyses, greater pre-writing context coverage was associated with higher product quality. These findings identify pen onset as a useful boundary for analyzing visual information use in constrained production: external sampling is greatest before writing, and task-specific re-access persists during execution. Because the task order was fixed, page-family differences cannot be separated from practice or scaffolding. Phase-specific area-of-interest measures can therefore add process information to product scores without treating gaze as a direct measure of cognition.
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.