An Eye-Tracking Study on Text Comprehension While Listening to Music: Preliminary Results

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents an interesting and relevant investigation into the effects of background music on text comprehension using eye-tracking technology. The combination of reading performance analysis, subjective self-reports, and objective eye-tracking data provides valuable insights into how auditory environments influence cognitive processing. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved to enhance clarity, methodological rigor, and impact:

1. Methodological Clarity: While the abstract and conclusions mention key eye-tracking measures (fixation duration, fixation count, TTFF, FFD), the methodology section should provide a more detailed description of how these were calculated and analyzed. Additionally, details on the eye-tracking device specifications, calibration procedures, and data preprocessing would strengthen the reproducibility of the study.

2. Sample Size and Generalizability: The study is based on a small sample of ten Greek university students. While the authors acknowledge this limitation, it would be beneficial to discuss whether power analysis was conducted to justify the sample size. Expanding on the implications of cultural and linguistic factors affecting reading comprehension would also be useful.

3. Statistical Analysis: The results section does not provide sufficient details regarding the statistical analyses performed. Clarifying the statistical tests used to compare reading performance and eye-tracking measures across conditions would help assess the robustness of the findings. Were any corrections applied for multiple comparisons? Were effect sizes reported?

4. Future Research Directions: The conclusion suggests areas for future research, including different types of music and noise characteristics. However, specifying potential experimental designs (e.g., within-subject studies with larger sample sizes, and controlled exposure to varying noise levels) would strengthen these recommendations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-written and effectively communicates the research objectives and findings. However, as I do not specialize in academic English language editing, I am unable to provide a detailed assessment of linguistic quality. I recommend that the authors consider a professional proofreading service or a native English speaker with experience in academic writing to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to the journal’s language standards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and written in a clear presentation. The topic of eye fixation is an old research-area. However, this manuscript presents a new layer of eye fixation research. The intentional research design provides the layers of noise and its control of comprehension and understanding. It provides a lens into how students/people can use background noise while continuing to remain on task.

I recommend that you look for overuse of words such as very as found in your first paragraph. I also believe listing an example of the background music used in the study would be interesting.

I found the research design to be inclusive and presented in clearly for readers to understand. Your discussion/conclusion provided a context for additional study.

Eye movement research is not a new topic. This research has been conducted previously. The new information this article presents is in reference to eye movements using a variety of music types. This research does fill a gap when adding the use of music to the analysis of eye movements.

This study provides information for a variety of users from early readers to proficient adult readers when considering background noise.

There were a variety of tables/figures presented that supported the findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the influence of background music on reading comprehension. An eye tracking experiment was designed in which 10 participants read text under four conditions: listening to preferred, nonpreferred music, noise and silence. Several metrics of eye movement behavior, reading performance and attitudes were compared among the four conditions. Significant differences were observed in reading attitudes measurements.

The structure is clear and easy to follow. The paper generally reads smooth and the results seem interesting, but there are some important issues. The authors may consider the following questions and comments for revising the manuscript.

(1) The sample size of only 10 participants is too small, which limits the statistical power of analysis. Moreover, the number of male and female participants is imbalanced.

(2) Section 2.5. Data analysis. ANOVA requires normal distribution of data and need to check the homogeneity of variance. Therefore, whether ANOVA is appropriate for the data needs to be checked.

(3) There is a conflict between (1) Table 1 (L317-319) (“no statistically significant different” regarding reading performance) and (2) L444-445 (“the participants’ reading comprehension scores were significantly lower in the non-preferred music condition than the other conditions”), if the latter ‘significantly lower’ means ‘statistically significantly lower’.

(4) Section 4.2, Text comprehension: there may be trade-off between reading time and accuracy (comprehension score), because the experiment did not limit the time for each text reading. As Figure 3 shows, preferred group spent longer time and achieved relatively higher scores. And non-preferred group had shorter time and obtained lower scores.

(5) Figures 2, 3 and 4 are better to be in the results section rather than in the discussion, because they provide descriptive results and it is betted to be interpreted combining with inferential statistical results.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Substantial revisions have been made for the paper, which has improved the quality of the paper significantly and addressed all my concerns. Now I recommend its publication on this journal.