Eye Tracking and AI-Generated Content: A Systematic Literature Review of Visual Attention, Cognitive Processing, and User Engagement.

IF 2.2 4区 心理学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Hakile Resulbegoviq, Valentina Hlebec, Mirjana Pejić Bach, Irina Stamatović
{"title":"Eye Tracking and AI-Generated Content: A Systematic Literature Review of Visual Attention, Cognitive Processing, and User Engagement.","authors":"Hakile Resulbegoviq, Valentina Hlebec, Mirjana Pejić Bach, Irina Stamatović","doi":"10.3390/jemr19050097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Generative artificial intelligence increasingly produces text, images, feedback, summaries, advertisements, synthetic faces, and audiovisual content evaluated alongside human-produced material. This systematic review synthesized comparative eye-tracking evidence on visual attention, cognitive processing, and engagement with AI-generated content. Searches of Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed yielded 896 records; 23 studies met the eligibility criteria and contributed 778 participants in the review-relevant eye-tracking components. The evidence covered textual, static visual, audiovisual, and interactive outputs. Across heterogeneous designs and tasks, no modality-independent gaze pattern emerged. AI-generated material sometimes attracted more focal inspection, sometimes received less task-relevant attention, and often redistributed gaze across interface elements. Where supported by task characteristics or complementary outcomes, longer viewing was more often associated with processing difficulty, uncertainty, or checking than with preference. Generated summaries supported learning in some settings, whereas realistic synthetic media remained difficult to identify despite focused inspection. Methodological appraisal identified recurrent limitations in sampling, stimulus matching, confounder control, eye-tracking reporting, and documentation of model versions, prompts, generation settings, and output selection. Observed gaze differences were context-dependent and varied with modality, task, comparator, source belief, expertise, output quality, and measurement choices. Standardized reporting and stronger links between gaze and functional outcomes are needed for cumulative inference.</p>","PeriodicalId":15813,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Eye Movement Research","volume":"19 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13600100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Eye Movement Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jemr19050097","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence increasingly produces text, images, feedback, summaries, advertisements, synthetic faces, and audiovisual content evaluated alongside human-produced material. This systematic review synthesized comparative eye-tracking evidence on visual attention, cognitive processing, and engagement with AI-generated content. Searches of Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed yielded 896 records; 23 studies met the eligibility criteria and contributed 778 participants in the review-relevant eye-tracking components. The evidence covered textual, static visual, audiovisual, and interactive outputs. Across heterogeneous designs and tasks, no modality-independent gaze pattern emerged. AI-generated material sometimes attracted more focal inspection, sometimes received less task-relevant attention, and often redistributed gaze across interface elements. Where supported by task characteristics or complementary outcomes, longer viewing was more often associated with processing difficulty, uncertainty, or checking than with preference. Generated summaries supported learning in some settings, whereas realistic synthetic media remained difficult to identify despite focused inspection. Methodological appraisal identified recurrent limitations in sampling, stimulus matching, confounder control, eye-tracking reporting, and documentation of model versions, prompts, generation settings, and output selection. Observed gaze differences were context-dependent and varied with modality, task, comparator, source belief, expertise, output quality, and measurement choices. Standardized reporting and stronger links between gaze and functional outcomes are needed for cumulative inference.

眼动追踪和人工智能生成的内容:视觉注意、认知处理和用户参与的系统文献综述。
生成式人工智能越来越多地产生文本、图像、反馈、摘要、广告、合成面孔和视听内容,与人类生产的材料一起进行评估。本系统综述综合了视觉注意力、认知处理和人工智能生成内容参与方面的比较眼动追踪证据。在Scopus、Web of Science和PubMed中搜索得到896条记录;23项研究符合资格标准,共有778名参与者参与了与评论相关的眼球追踪组件。证据包括文本、静态视觉、视听和交互式输出。在不同的设计和任务中,没有模态独立的凝视模式出现。ai生成的材料有时会吸引更多的焦点检查,有时会收到较少的任务相关关注,并且经常在界面元素之间重新分配注意力。在任务特征或互补结果的支持下,较长的观看时间通常与处理难度、不确定性或检查有关,而不是与偏好有关。生成的摘要在某些情况下支持学习,而现实的合成媒体尽管集中检查仍然难以识别。方法学评估确定了采样、刺激匹配、混杂控制、眼动追踪报告、模型版本文档、提示、生成设置和输出选择等方面的局限性。观察到的凝视差异与情境相关,并随模态、任务、比较者、来源信念、专业知识、输出质量和测量选择而变化。累积推断需要标准化的报告和注视与功能结果之间更强的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
33.30%
发文量
10
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Eye Movement Research is an open-access, peer-reviewed scientific periodical devoted to all aspects of oculomotor functioning including methodology of eye recording, neurophysiological and cognitive models, attention, reading, as well as applications in neurology, ergonomy, media research and other areas,
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书