The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing different eye tracking cues when using theretrospective think aloud method in usability testing
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 [67]
In the citing paper
“This impact is expected specifically in the case of CTA [67,70], as this method may bring the unnatural behavior of humans during task solving [72].”
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 [67]
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, it has also limitations like forgetting information or omitting its interpretation [55,56,58,67] and post-rationalization or fabrication of thoughts [68,69,70].”
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 [67]
In the citing paper
“The unnatural physical behavior of CTA participants can also contribute to the increased number of fixations as speaking may influence the head movements and thus also the eyes [67,70,72].”
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 [67]
In the citing paper
“Many authors recommend using a combination of verbal protocols and eye-tracking to investigate cognitive processes [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 [67]
1 more claim 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
Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing
Faulkner, L. (2003) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03195514 · Cited by 1,053
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
Cited by
Prokop, M., Pilař, L., & Tichá, I. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20102750 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Olsen, A., Smolentzov, L., & Strandvall, T.
- Venue
- Electronic Workshops in Computing
- Publisher
- BCS Learning & Development
- Published
- 2010-09
- ISSN
- 1477-9358
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 2
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.
