Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The fundamentals of eye tracking part 6: Working with areas of interest.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same author

Eyes wide open: Object-scene congruency and the pupillary response.

Neuropsychologia·2025
Same author

Bayesian Dynamical Modeling of Fixational Eye Movements.

Biological cybernetics·2025
Same author

Toward Dynamical Modeling of Infants' Looking Times.

Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science·2025
Same author

Distinctive pupil and microsaccade-rate signatures in self-recognition.

Journal of vision·2025
Same author

How can we make sound replication decisions?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 10, 2026

Eye-tracking to Distinguish Comprehension-based and Oculomotor-based Regressive Eye Movements During Reading
05:54

Eye-tracking to Distinguish Comprehension-based and Oculomotor-based Regressive Eye Movements During Reading

Published on: October 18, 2018

Eye movements during reading of randomly shuffled text.

Daniel J Schad1, Antje Nuthmann, Ralf Engbert

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam, Germany. Daniel.Schad@uni-potsdam.de

Vision Research
|August 20, 2010
PubMed
Summary

Reading meaningless text slows eye movements, increasing fixations and refixations. This suggests cognitive language processing significantly impacts reading, even affecting word frequency effects on eye movements.

More Related Videos

Using Eye Movements to Evaluate the Cognitive Processes Involved in Text Comprehension
06:49

Using Eye Movements to Evaluate the Cognitive Processes Involved in Text Comprehension

Published on: January 10, 2014

Loneliness Assuaged: Eye-Tracking an Audience Watching Barrage Videos
06:45

Loneliness Assuaged: Eye-Tracking an Audience Watching Barrage Videos

Published on: May 29, 2020

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 10, 2026

Eye-tracking to Distinguish Comprehension-based and Oculomotor-based Regressive Eye Movements During Reading
05:54

Eye-tracking to Distinguish Comprehension-based and Oculomotor-based Regressive Eye Movements During Reading

Published on: October 18, 2018

Using Eye Movements to Evaluate the Cognitive Processes Involved in Text Comprehension
06:49

Using Eye Movements to Evaluate the Cognitive Processes Involved in Text Comprehension

Published on: January 10, 2014

Loneliness Assuaged: Eye-Tracking an Audience Watching Barrage Videos
06:45

Loneliness Assuaged: Eye-Tracking an Audience Watching Barrage Videos

Published on: May 29, 2020

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Computational Linguistics

Background:

  • The role of cognitive language processing versus visuomotor control in reading eye movements is debated.
  • Previous research indicates lexical properties influence reading eye movements.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare eye movement patterns during reading of meaningful text versus meaningless (shuffled) text.
  • To investigate how cognitive load affects the perceptual span during reading.

Main Methods:

  • Participants read normal and randomly shuffled text.
  • Eye movements (fixation times, skipping, refixations) were recorded.
  • Statistical linear mixed-effect models were used for analysis.

Main Results:

  • Reading shuffled text resulted in longer fixations, fewer skipped words, and more refixations compared to normal text.
  • The typical word frequency effect on fixation duration was absent in shuffled text, with an interaction for word length.
  • Evidence suggests the perceptual span is more influenced by foveal load in shuffled text reading.

Conclusions:

  • Cognitive language processing plays a crucial role in modulating eye movements during reading.
  • The perceptual span is dynamically adjusted based on task demands and cognitive load.
  • Findings support computational models of reading that incorporate cognitive factors.