Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 21 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5  - Next
2009 - International Communication Association Words: 343 words || 
Info
1. Stanton, David. "EyeTracking the News: The Report of EyeTrack 07A Study of Print and Online Reading" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott, Chicago, IL, <Not Available>. 2019-09-19 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p298658_index.html>
Publication Type: Session Paper
Abstract: How much do readers read – in both the printed and the online version of a newspaper?
This paper explores the answer to that question by reporting the results of a study conducted by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies in 2006 in which 600 readers (200 reading broadsheet newspapers, 200 reading tabloid newspapers, 200 reading newspapers online) were studied using the latest technology in eye tracking equipment to determine how much they read and to examine their behavior in how they navigated through information in newspaper and in news online. Readers read the newspaper or news website for 15 minutes while the eye tracking equipment measured what they read, how much they read, what they looked at first, second and third on each page or screen, and how many elements they observed. With almost 300 variables measured, the data provided a rich foundation to study similarities and differences between reading and navigating through information in print and online.
The study reveals what elements attracted the most visual attention or eye stops. Among the variables studied: Headlines, photographs, informational graphics, lead stories, centerpiece stories, regular news stories, briefs, columnists, fact boxes, alternative story forms and much more. Stories in print and online were measured so that a precise count of how much text was read could be calculated. All results were compared to determine similarities and differences between print and online reading. The most important finding in this study was that readers read more story text online than in print. This paper reports the details of the findings of the entire study.
All 600 readers who were tested in the eye tracking study participated in comprehension/prototype part of the study. After they were eye tracked reading the real newspaper in print or online, they were asked to read one of the comprehension prototypes. Each reader read the prototype for five minutes and then took a five-minute test that contained factual questions about the stories. The results showed that alternative story forms and display worked better to help people remember facts about a story.

2010 - The Law and Society Association Words: 498 words || 
Info
2. Laub, Cindy., Bornstein, Brian. and Dodd, Mike. "Do Perceptual Processes Underlie the Cross-Race Effect? An Eyetracking Approach" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association, Renaissance Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, May 27, 2010 <Not Available>. 2019-09-19 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p407420_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The Cross-Race Effect (CRE) is the tendency to have better recognition accuracy for same-race than for other-race faces. The effect is robust across numerous races and research paradigms (Meissner & Brigham, 2001). Given the reliance of the legal system on eyewitness identifications, understanding the mechanisms underlying the CRE is important.

There are differences between faces of one race and faces of another race in terms of the variability in those features. For example, white faces show more variability in hair color, and black faces show more variability in skin tone. For witnesses to correctly identify members of other races, they must focus on the characteristics that distinguish that person from other people of the same race. Most of us have more experience with members of our own race, so our natural instinct is to focus on the features that distinguish members of our own group; we have less practice distinguishing one member of another race from other people of that race. Thus, the present study was designed to contrast differences in how participants view own-race faces in comparison to how they view other-race faces by employing eyetracking software, which monitors where participants are looking as they process complex visual stimuli (e.g., duration of attention, area of first fixation).

Data were collected from 30 undergraduate psychology students, who viewed 32 faces (16 white and 16 black) prior to taking a recognition test. Paired samples t¬-tests compared how long participants attended to key facial features (e.g., nose, mouth, hair) while viewing white vs. black faces. Participants spent longer looking at the mouth on a black face than a white face. When viewing a white face, participants were quicker to fixate on the eyes and the nose; however, when viewing a black face, participants were quicker to fixate on the mouth. We then split the data into correct identifications vs. incorrect identifications, and conducted one-way ANOVAs to determine whether any of the areas of interest would differentiate between the accuracy of identifying white-race or black-race faces. For white faces, participants who made correct identifications spent significantly less time looking at the eyes, the mouth and the hair than participants who made incorrect identifications. On the other hand, the only area of interest that differentiated correct from incorrect identifications for black-race faces was the mouth. Specifically, the more time looking at the mouth of black-race faces, the more likely participants were to make correct identifications.

Thus, there appears to be differences in the way we process own vs. other-race faces. White participants who spent more time looking at the mouth when viewing a black (other-race) face did significantly better at recognition, than those who fixated on other features. However, those same participants, who spent more time looking at the mouth and eyes of white (own-race) faces, made more errors. Future researcher needs to examine how different ethnicities view own vs. other-race faces to get a better idea of features that aid recognition accuracy, and differentiate in how people process facial features.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5  - Next

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy