Abdel-RaheemA (2017) Can cartoons influence Americans’ attitudes toward bailouts?Visual Communication Quarterly24(3): 179–191.
2.
AngouriJWodakR (2014) ‘They became big in the shadow of the crisis’: The Greek success story and the rise of the far right. Discourse & Society25(4): 540–565.
3.
BarkerM (2021) The concept of ‘engagement’: A cautious manifesto. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies18(1): 177–205.
4.
BatemanJASchmidtKH (2012) Multimodal Film Analysis: How Films Mean. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BordwellD (1989) Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BoyBBucherHJChristK (2020) Audiovisual science communication on TV and YouTube. How recipients understand and evaluate science videos. Frontiers in Communication5. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.608620.
7.
BucherHJ (2017) Understanding multimodal meaning making: Theories of multimodality in the light of reception studies. In: SeizovOWildfeuerJ (eds) New Studies in Multimodality: Conceptual and Methodological Elaborations. London: Bloomsbury, 91–123.
8.
BucherHJBoyB (2018) How informative are information comics in science communication? Empirical results from an eye-tracking study and knowledge testing. In: DunstA, et al (eds) Empirical Comic Research: Digital, Multimodal and Cognitive Methods. New York, NY: Routledge, 176–196.
9.
BucherHJNiemannP (2012) Visualizing science: The reception of PowerPoint presentations. Visual Communication11(3): 283–306.
10.
BucherHJSchumacherP (2006) The relevance of attention for selecting news content: An eye-tracking study on attention patterns in the reception of print and online media. Communications31(3): 347–368.
11.
CastaldiJ (2021) A multimodal analysis of the representation of the Rohingya crisis in BBC’s Burma with Simon Reeve (2018): Integrating Audience Research in Multimodal Critical Discourse Studies. Multimodal Communication10(1): 55–72.
12.
CastaldiJ (2025) Multimodality, Ideology and Manipulation: BBC Travel Documentaries and the Illusion of Empire. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
ChuaHFBolandJENisbettRE (2005) Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences102(35): 12629–12633.
14.
CohnNPaczynskiM (2013) Prediction, events, and the advantage of Agents: The processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cognitive Psychology67(3): 73–97.
15.
ForcevilleC (1996) Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.
16.
ForcevilleC (1999) Art or ad? The influence of genre-attribution on the interpretation of images. SPIEL18(2): 279–300.
17.
GidlöfKHolmbergNSandbergH (2012) The use of eye-tracking and retrospective interviews to study teenagers’ exposure to online advertising. Visual Communication11: 329–345.
18.
HallidayMAKHasanR (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19.
HartC (2018) ‘Riots engulfed the city’: An experimental study investigating the legitimating effects of fire metaphors in discourses of disorder. Discourse & Society29(3): 279–298.
20.
HeJ (2019) Two-layer reading positions in comments on online news discourse about China. Discourse & Communication13(5): 473–496.
21.
HolsanovaJ (2014) In the eye of the beholder: Visual communication from a recipient perspective. In: MachinD (ed.) Visual Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 331–356.
22.
HolsanovaJRahmHHolmqvistK (2006) Entry points and reading paths on newspaper spreads: Comparing a semiotic analysis with eye-tracking measurements. Visual Communication5(1): 65–93.
23.
IedemaR (2001) Analysing film and television: A social semiotic account of ‘Hospital: An Unhealthy Business’. In: Van LeeuwenTJewittC (eds) Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: SAGE, 183–204.
24.
IfantidouETzanneA (2006) Multimodality and relevance in the Athens 2004 Olympic Games televised promotion. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses19: 191–210.
25.
MetzgerMJHartsellEHFlanaginAJ (2020) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research47(1). DOI: 10.1177/00936502156131: 3–28.
26.
MüllerMGKappasAOlkB (2012) Perceiving press photography: A new integrative model, combining iconology with psychophysiological and eye-tracking methods. Visual Communication11: 307–328.
27.
TsengCILaubrockJBatemanJA (2021) The impact of multimodal cohesion on attention and interpretation in film. Discourse, Context & Media44. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100544.
28.
WayL (2015) YouTube as a site of debate through populist politics: The case of a Turkish protest pop video. Journal of Multicultural Discourses10(2): 180–196.