Tracking Adults’ Eye Movements to Study Text Comprehension: A Review Article

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a good overview of the studies in the field under investigation and is well written and structured. However, it is not entirely clear how the individual stages of the selection process took place. Here it would be good to go into more detail, e.g. on the participants in the studies, especially on their language biographies. See also the comments in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores the use of eye-tracking technology to investigate reading comprehension in adults, focusing on its relationship with cognitive processes. It reviews 13 studies, examining how eye movements can reflect different stages of text processing and covering three main areas:

• Print vs. digital reading
• Text comprehension under various perspectives
• Effects of instructional strategies on reading comprehension

I found the text quite informative and well-structured: the selection process of the studies examined seems thorough and appropriate to the research goal. Overall, the paper offers valuable insights into how eye-tracking technology can enhance our understanding of reading processes in adult populations: thus, I recommend it for publication. However, there are three minor observations that I would like the authors to consider:

1. The authors clearly explained that they chose to consider only text comprehension in adults with typical development. Why did they decide to exclude that of children (and atypical populations)?  While the rationale behind the exclusion is clearer for the latter group, my suggestion is to briefly add the reasons behind this choice for both the excluded populations

2. Are there no studies on this topic from the last two years (2023-2024)?

 

3. ll. 519-520 the closing sentence seems circumstantial and somewhat too vague – I would suggest considering a reformulation to make it more straightforward  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the revisions have definitely improved the paper and it can be published in this form.