Oculomotor responses of students with different leading perceptual modalities when reading words of different presentation durations

Download article

DOI: 10.22138/2500-0918-2026-23-3-399-412

N.V. Zvyagina, A.I. Taleeva, D.A. Skulyabina, L.V. Morozova

Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Arkhangelsk, Russian Federation

Abstract

Computer-assisted learning is currently attracting increasing research interest. In the context of information overload, this approach enables the presentation of large volumes of data by reducing exposure time per information unit. High-speed video playback and scrolling text feeds (tickers) have become common practices in modern media consumption. Altering the speed of information delivery imposes specific cognitive demands on users. In this regard, particular interest lies in examining oculomotor activity during dynamic text reading, along with the effectiveness of information retention in individuals with different psychophysiological profiles. This study aimed to characterize oculomotor activity in young adults (aged 19-21) with different dominant sensory modalities while reading moving words presented at various speeds. Methods. Forty-three students from the Northern (Arctic) Federal University participated in the study. Oculomotor responses were recorded during a moving-word reading task under different time conditions using a stationary iView XTM RED binocular eye-tracking system (500 Hz). Results. Participants with a dominant visual sensory modality demonstrated higher accuracy (percentage of correct responses across all stimulus series) when reading moving words at varying speeds compared with auditory and kinesthetic learners. This performance advantage was associated with distinct oculomotor patterns (e.g., shorter fixation durations and reduced number of regressions). Furthermore, significant correlations between task accuracy and specific eye-tracking parameters were observed exclusively within the visual-dominant group.

Keywords: oculomotor activity, saccades, fixations, cognitive activity, reading, dominant perceptual modality

There is no conflict of interest.

Contact information of the author responsible for correspondence

Anna I. Taleeva
 a.taleeva@narfu.ru
Received: 30.03.2026

For citation

Zvyagina N.V., Taleeva A.I., Skulyabina D.A., Morozova L.V. Oculomotor responses of students with different leading perceptual modalities when reading words of different presentation durations. Vestn. Ural. Med. Akad. Nauki. = Journal of Ural Medical Academic Science. 2026, Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 399-412. DOI: 10.22138/2500-0918-2026-23-3-399-412 (In Russ)

REFERENCES

  1. Barabanshchikov V.A., Milad M.M. Oculography Methods in the Study of Cognitive Processes and Activity. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences; 1994. (In Russ).
  2. Vladimirov I.Yu., Chistopolskaya A.V. Eye-tracking and cognitive monitoring as the methods of insight process objectification. Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental psychology. 2019;12(1): 167-179. doi: 10.17759/exppsy.2019120113. (In Russ).
  3. Barabanshchikov V.A. Modern Psychophysics. Moscow: Publishing House «Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences»; 2009. (In Russ).
  4. Belopolsky V.I. Human Gaze: Mechanisms, Models, Functions. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences; 2007. (In Russ).
  5. Fleming N.D., Mills C. Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy. 1992;11: 137-155.
  6. Navalikhina A.I. Leading perception modality test for learning purposes. PNRPU Linguistics and Pedagogy Bulletin. 2022;(3): 192-204. (In Russ).
  7. Fetiskin N.P., Kozlov V.V., Manuilov G.M. Social and Psychological Diagnostics of Personality and Small Group Development. Moscow: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychotherapy; 2002. (In Russ).
  8. Pashler H., McDaniel M., Rohrer D., Bjork R. Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2008;9(3): 105-119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.
  9. Barabanshchikov V.A., Zhegallo A.V. Eye Tracking: Methods of Recording Eye Movements in Psychological Research and Practice. Moscow: Cogito-Center; 2014. (In Russ).
  10. Yarbus A.L. The role of eye movements in the process of visual perception. Moscow: Nauka; 1965. (In Russ).
  11. O'Regan J.K. Eye movement strategy and tactics in word recognition and reading. In: Kowler E. (ed.). Eye Movements and Their Role in Visual and Cognitive Processes. Boston: Springer MA; 1990.
  12. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin. 1998;124(3): 372-422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
  13. Vitu F., McConkie G.W., Kerr P., O'Regan J.K. Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: An inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research. 2001;41(25-26): 3513-3533. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00170-4
  14. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review. 1980;87(4): 329-354. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
  15. Radach R., Heller D. Effects of word frequency, predictability, and number of meanings on eye fixations. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2010;22(7): 1052-1066. doi: 10.1080/09541440903020697
  16. Inhoff A.W., Radach R. Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In: Underwood G.D.M. (ed.). Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.; 1998. p. 29-53. doi: 10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50003-1
  17. McConkie G.W., Rayner K. The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics. 1975;17(6): 578-586. doi: 10.3758/BF03203972
  18. Eysenck M.W., Keane M.T. Cognitive psychology: A student's handbook. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2020. 980 p. doi: 10.4324/9781351058513
  19. Solso R.L. Cognitive Psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2017.
  20. Kowler E. Eye movements: the past 25 years. Vision Research. 2011;51(13):1457-83. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.014
  21. Evsyutkina P.A. The Role of Perceptual Modalities in the Sensory-Perceptual Organization of Students. Young Scientist. 2017;(38): 101-104. (In Russ).
  22. Larina A.V. Improving the efficiency of learning for primary school students taking into account the leading perceptual modality. Young Scientist. 2022;(52): 200-201. (In Russ).
  23. Lin J. Sensory inputs guiding cognitive behaviors and decision making. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Imaging, Sanitation and Biological Pharmacy. 2023;(74).
  24. Sakurada T., Matsumoto M., Yamamoto S. Individual sensory modality dominance as an influential factor in prefrontal neurofeedback training for spatial processing: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy study. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2022;16: 774475. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2022.774475

Authors

Natalya V. Zvyagina
Cand. Sci. (Biol.), Associate Professor
Head of the Department of Human Biology and Biotechnical Systems
 n.zvyagina@narfu.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8384-0424

Anna I. Taleeva
Cand. Sci. (Biol.)
Associate Professor of the Department of Human Biology and Biotechnical Systems
 a.taleeva@narfu.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9346-6357

Daria A. Skulyabina
Postgraduate student of the Department of Human Biology and Biotechnical Systems

Lyudmila V. Morozova
 Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Professor
Associate Professor of the Department of Human Biology and Biotechnical Systems
 l.morozova@narfu.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5503-8485

Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov
Arkhangelsk, Russian Federation

 
 
 

Authorization