These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Eye movement patterns and reading ability in children.
    Author: Hindmarsh GP, Black AA, White SL, Hopkins S, Wood JM.
    Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2021 Sep; 41(5):1134-1143. PubMed ID: 34431543.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Eye movements are integral to the reading process. This study characterised the eye movement patterns of children differentiated by their reading ability, while completing a saccadic eye movement test with irregular target spacing (Development Eye Movement (DEM) test) using a novel eye movement classification algorithm. METHODS: Participants included 196 Grade 2 Australian schoolchildren (mean age: 7.9 ± 0.3 years) who completed a computerised version of the DEM test, while their eye movements were recorded (Tobii TX300 eye-tracker). Children also completed a standardised reading comprehension test, which categorised them into below average and average or above reading ability groups. A novel eye movement classification algorithm was developed that considered the vertical and horizontal eye movements of each child. RESULTS: Compared to children with average or above reading ability, the below average reading group displayed poor vertical eye movement control, demonstrated by a significantly greater proportion of interline eye movements (vertical eye movements away from the current line) (p < 0.001). Differences in horizontal eye movements were also observed, with below average readers demonstrating a smaller proportion of expected forward saccades (p < 0.001) (within-line forward saccades with horizontal amplitude between the minimum and maximum horizontal spacing between digits), while this group also displayed longer fixation durations (p = 0.001). The below average reading group demonstrated significantly poorer results on all standard DEM metrics than the average or above reading ability group: horizontal subtest time (p < 0.001), vertical subtest time (p = 0.004) and ratio (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Children exhibiting below average reading ability were poorer at maintaining control of vertical (interline), as well as horizontal, eye movements compared to children with average or above reading ability. Future studies should explore the mechanisms underlying these differences, particularly in vertical eye movements, given that reading paragraphs (involving multiple lines of text) requires accurate eye movements in both the vertical and horizontal direction.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]