ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Responsible use of generative AI in Chinese vocational education: eye-tracking evidence on source verification and immediate near-transfer across three information-seeking conditions.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can streamline information screening and integration in vocational learning, but easy access to fluent answers may reduce students' tendency to check sources. Drawing on a dual-process perspective, this study compared GenAI-only, conventional web-search, and hybrid-search conditions in terms of source verification, task trust, perceived cognitive load, and condition-supported immediate near-transfer performance. Methods: Ninety-six vocational college students took part in a three-group, between-subjects eye-tracking experiment. After stratification by year of study, disciplinary cluster, and prior AI-use experience, they were randomly assigned to the three conditions ( Results: GenAI-only participants completed the two timed tasks fastest and reported the lowest perceived cognitive load and the highest task trust, but they devoted less attention to source evidence, made fewer cross-verification attempts, and revised their answers less often. Conventional web search involved more multi-source browsing and evidence comparison but required the most time. Hybrid search showed the highest source-evidence dwell proportion (27.9%), cross-verification-attempt rate (78.1%), and immediate near-transfer score (86.99), and outperformed both other conditions on near-transfer performance. After adjustment for search condition and prior tool experience, source-evidence dwell proportion ( Conclusion: The three search modes showed different trade-offs between efficiency, verification, and task performance. GenAI-only search reduced completion time and overall perceived cognitive load, whereas hybrid search was associated with more source checking and better immediate near-transfer performance under the assigned condition. These findings suggest that GenAI can support problem framing and information organization when learners continue to verify evidence and retain responsibility for final judgments.
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.