# An Eye-Tracking Study on Text Comprehension While Listening to Music: Preliminary Results
## 4 Discussion
### Visual Patterns in Text Comprehension  
According to H1, Time To First Fixation (TTFF) is expected to be longer in the non-preferred music and cafe noise conditions than in the preferred music and silence conditions. This hypothesis was based on the assumption that non-preferred music and cafe noise would delay visual attention allocation due to increased cognitive load. Contrary to the hypothesis, there was no statistically significant difference in TTFF across the four reading conditions: preferred music, non-preferred music, cafe noise, and silence. Participants initiated the reading at a consistent pace regardless of the auditory condition, indicating their ability to adapt promptly to the auditory stimuli. This finding contradicts studies indicating that auditory distractions, especially unpredictable or aversive noise, can delay attention allocation and increase TTFF [22; 34; 35]. For instance, [PERSON] et al. [22] found that a noise-induced cognitive load prolongs fixation time as readers filter out irrelevant stimuli. However, the findings align with studies suggesting that visual attention processes, particularly initial fixation, are largely automatic and less \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**P-S**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**P-C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**P-NP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**S-C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**S-NP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C-NP**} \\ \hline
**Reading Attitude** & **DSCF** & \(p\)**-Value** & **DSCF** & \(p\)**-Value** & **DSCF** & \(p\)**-Value** & **DSCF** & \(p\)**-Value** & **DSCF** & \(p\)**-Value** & **DSCF** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**Perceived** & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**Difficulty** & 0.98 & 1.381 & 2.40 & 0.325 & 4.89 * & 0.003 & 3.45 & 0.070 & 5.43 * & 0.001 & 3.23 & 0.102 \\
**(0-4 point scale)** & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Perceived** & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**Understanding** & 0.10 & 1.000 & 2.41 & 0.322 & 5.25 * & 0.001 & 2.41 & 0.322 & 5.25 * & 0.001 & 4.48 * & 0.008 \\
**(0-4 point scale)** & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Perceived** & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**Confidence** & 1.54 & 0.696 & 4.57 * & 0.007 & 4.96 * & 0.003 & 5.44* & 0.001 & 5.47 * & 0.001 & 2.60 & 0.254 \\
**(0-4 point scale)** & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Perceived** & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**Imperson** & 0.23 & 0.998 & 2.48 & 0.294 & 5.38 * & 0.001 & 2.53 & 0.278 & 5.37 * & 0.001 & 3.54 & 0.059 \\
**(0-4 point scale)** & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* * \(p\leq 0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] post hoc tests for each of the reading attitudes under the preferred music (P), non-preferred music (NP), cafe noise (C), and silence (S) conditions. affected by auditory distractions [13; 23]. Furthermore, the consistent TTFF observed in this study lends support to the notion that visual attention remains stable in the presence of familiar or predictable distractions, as evidenced by prior research in reading in cafe noise and preferred music conditions [23]. In conclusion, the observed discrepancy between the results and our initial hypothesis may be attributed to the participants' familiarity with background noise, as indicated by the 40% response rate indicating frequent use of music while studying (see Appendix A, Table A2). Furthermore, the predictable nature of cafe noise is likely to have reduced its cognitive load, resulting in a reduced disruptive impact. Therefore, H1 was not confirmed. According to H2, the participants were expected to exhibit longer fixation duration and more fixations count when reading under the non-preferred music and cafe noise conditions than under the preferred music and silence conditions. This was based on the assumption that non-preferred music and cafe noise would increase cognitive load, leading to more frequent and prolonged fixations as readers make an effort to compensate for auditory distractions.