The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocols and Eye-Tracking Observations: An Analysis of Verbalizations and Silences
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, many authors, who deal with think-aloud, also recommend combining them with eye-tracking [47,54,64,65,67,71].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“The data omissions occur especially when the presented information is difficult to verbalize or the processes are automatic for participants [55,56,64,65].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“Contrarily, Elling et al. [64] argue that verbalization may not correlate with fixation in many cases of more demanding tasks when many verbalized thoughts cannot be associated with fixations at all.”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“Scientists, who have described deficiencies of verbal protocols, recommend their combination with eye-tracking, which helps to complete missing data and insights [47,54,64,65].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“In the case of CTA, the risk of losing such evidence is lower because it is more natural for participants to verbalize the information, which they can read from the screen while solving the task [64,65,81].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
2 more claims about this paper
Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
Monsell, S. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00028-7 · Cited by 2,984
Gaze Path Stimulation in Retrospective Think-Aloud
Hyrskykari, A., Ovaska, S., Majaranta, P., Räihä, K.-J., & Lehtinen, M. (2008) · Journal of Eye Movement Research · doi:10.16910/jemr.2.4.5 · Cited by 118
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- 10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00068-7 · DOI · Paper page
- cox, 2006, The role of mouse movements in interactive search, Proc 28th Annu Meeting Cognit Sci Soc, 1156
- jacob, 2003, The Mind's Eye Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, 574
- goldberg, 2003, The Mind's Eye Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, 493
- 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0203_2 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.004 · DOI
- 10.1177/1050651911429920 · DOI
- 10.1145/371920.371966 · DOI
- 10.1177/154193129003401720 · DOI · Paper page
- cowen, 2002, People Comput XVI (Proc HCI 2002), 317
- 10.1109/47.867945 · doi:10.1109/47.867945
- 10.1080/0044929031000 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.007 · DOI
- 10.1109/TPC.2006.885865 · doi:10.1109/tpc.2006.885865
- van den haak, 2007, Evaluation of an informational Web site: Three variants of the think-aloud method compared, Tech Commun, 54, 58
- 10.1016/j.giq.2007.11.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1978942.1979116 · DOI
- 10.1109/47.867944 · DOI
- cooke, 2005, Eye tracking: How it works and how it relates to usability, Tech Commun, 52, 456
- cooke, 2010, Assessing concurrent think-aloud protocol as a usability test method: A technical communication approach, IEEE Trans Prof Commun, 35, 202, 10.1109/TPC.2010.2052859 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TPC.2004.828205 · DOI
- van gog, 2009, Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction, Comput Human Behav, 25, 325, 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021 · DOI
- 10.1109/47.867942 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1125451.1125464 · DOI
- 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1142405.1142439 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1753326.1753685 · DOI
- 10.1080/01449290701773842 · DOI
- 10.1145/1868914.1868979 · DOI
- 10.1037//0033-295X.84.3.231 · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.84.3.231 · Paper page
- 10.1109/IPCC.2005.1494236 · DOI
- ball, 2006, Applying the PEEP method in usability testing, Interfaces, 67, 15
- 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237 · DOI · Paper page
- eger, 2007, Cueing retrospective verbal reports in usability testing through eye-movement replay, Proc 21st Brit CHI Group Annu Conf HCI People Comput XXI HCI But Not as We Know It, 1, 129
- poole, 2004, People Comput XVI (Proc HCI 2002), 363
- 10.1145/1124772.1124961 · DOI · Paper page
- ehmke, 2007, Identifying web usability problems from eye-tracking data, Proc 21st British CHI Group Annu Conf HCI People Comput XXI But Not as We Know It, 1, 119
Cited by
Prokop, M., Pilař, L., & Tichá, I. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20102750 · Cited by 48
Temporal Assessment of Self-Regulated Learning by Mining Students’ Think-Aloud Protocols
Lim, L., Bannert, M., van der Graaf, J., Molenaar, I., Fan, Y., Kilgour, J., Moore, J., & Gašević, D. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749749 · Cited by 44
Fan, M., Zhao, Q., & Tibdewal, V. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445680 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Elling, S., Lentz, L., & de Jong, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
- Published
- 2012-09
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 206-220
- ISSN
- 0361-1434
- 1558-1500
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 4
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
