ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Is easy-to-read easy for everyone? An eye-tracking study across the adult lifespan.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 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
Introduction: Easy-to-Read (E2R) formatting is widely recommended to improve reading accessibility, yet whether its typographic and structural features benefit visual processing and comprehension across the adult lifespan remains unclear. Methods: Using eye tracking, we examined whether E2R text formatting, relative to a standard control format, supports reading comprehension, reading time, and eye-movement behavior in 69 adults aged 18 to 83 years. Participants read short texts in both formats in a within-subject design while their eye movements were recorded, and reading comprehension was subsequently assessed. Data were analysed using mixed-effects models, with Text Format, Trial Order, Age, and theoretically relevant interactions entered as predictors across five dependent variables: comprehension accuracy, reading time, fixation count, average fixation duration, and average saccade amplitude. Results: E2R formatting did not significantly improve comprehension or reduce reading time relative to the control format. However, it was associated with shorter average fixation durations and larger average saccade amplitudes, suggesting some facilitation of visual processing during reading. Average fixation duration also showed a significant Text Format × Age interaction, whereby the difference between E2R and control formatting was more evident in younger adults and attenuated with increasing age, rather than becoming more pronounced among older readers as might be expected for an E2R format. Discussion: E2R formatting may facilitate some aspects of visual processing during reading across the adult lifespan, but these differences did not translate into improved comprehension or faster reading. Moreover, the observed visual-processing benefit did not become more pronounced with increasing age. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating the specific effects of E2R adaptations rather than assuming uniform benefits across adult age groups.
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.