arXiv:2608.30583cs.CL2026-08中稿 · EMNLP

用阅读时的眼动数据评估英语水平,更准且更可靠。

Language Proficiency Assessment from Eye Movements in Naturalistic Passage Reading

  • 通过眼动轨迹预测英语水平,不依赖传统语法词汇测试。
  • 眼动评分比传统测试更稳定,且对母语接近英语者有偏见。
  • 提出去偏方法,适合语言评估、教育技术研究者参考。

标准语言能力测试依赖词汇、语法和阅读理解等语言任务。一种认知驱动的替代方法(Berzak 等, 2018)提出从阅读时的眼动行为痕迹预测语言水平。本文将该方法从单句扩展到更自然的英文篇章阅读场景,涵盖信息检索情境、新能力指标与预测模型。结果表明该方法在各类评估中均有效。进一步探讨两个关键问题:(1)眼动评分可能受母语与英语语言相近性影响,存在评分偏差,削弱有效性;(2)其可靠性。结果显示,眼动评分确实偏向与英语语言相近的母语者。为此提出一种评分去偏方法,可有效缓解此问题。可靠性分析表明,眼动评分比传统测试更具一致性。整体结果强化并拓展了未来基于眼动的语言评估技术的实证基础。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Standard language proficiency tests rely on linguistic tasks such as vocabulary, grammar and reading comprehension quizzes. An alternative, cognitively motivated approach, introduced in Berzak et al. (2018), proposed instead to predict language proficiency from behavioral traces of eye movements in reading. In this work, we validate and extend this approach from single sentences to more naturalistic reading of contextualized passages in English as a second language, new proficiency measures, prediction models, and reading in an information seeking regime. We find that the approach is effective in all these evaluations. We further address two key open questions on eye movement based proficiency testing: (1) potential scoring biases that reflect the proximity of the reader's native language to English, which may undermine validity, and (2) its reliability. We find that eye movement based proficiency scores are indeed biased towards L1s that are linguistically closer to English. We propose a score debiasing method which effectively remedies this issue. The reliability analyses suggest that eye movement proficiency scores are more reliable than standard language proficiency scores. Overall, our results strengthen and broaden the empirical foundations for future eye movement based language assessment technologies.

语言评估眼动追踪机器学习教育科技

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。