SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Cognitive decision-making in police use of force: a scoping review based on eye-tracking research.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This scoping review aimed to systematically map and synthesize the existing eye-tracking literature on cognitive decision-making in police use of force. Specifically, it integrated evidence across five key domains: eye-tracking metric frameworks, decision-making paradigms, expert-novice differences, stress-related influences, and training interventions. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying police use-of-force decision-making and provide empirical support for the optimization of police training systems. Methods: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across four databases, including PubMed. Of 103 identified records, 15 studies were included after duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment. Data on publication characteristics, study designs, participant characteristics, eye-tracking metrics, research themes, and key findings were extracted and descriptively synthesized to map the current evidence landscape and characterize the existing body of research. Results: The included studies revealed that eye-tracking metrics in police use-of-force decision-making have evolved from single fixation-based measures to multidimensional frameworks incorporating fixation allocation, saccadic dynamics, visual states, and physiological-eye movement coupling. Existing decision-making paradigms highlight the importance of accurate attention allocation to threat-relevant cues and the avoidance of expectation-driven "shooting before seeing" responses. Expert-novice studies suggest that tactical training experience, rather than occupational tenure alone, contributes to more efficient gaze strategies under stress. Stress may impair decision-making by increasing threat expectancy and reducing fixation stability, whereas training interventions targeting deliberate practice and tactical gaze control improve gaze efficiency and response speed, with limited effects on decision accuracy among experienced officers. Conclusion: Eye-tracking research on police use-of-force decision-making has progressed from descriptive observation to mechanism-based explanation and intervention validation. Future research should integrate cognitive reappraisal and attentional regulation into a unified training framework, translating laboratory findings into scalable police training practices to reduce decision-making errors through evidence-based approaches.
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.