Nit-Picking about Peripheral/Foveal or Context/Targeted

Looking over the scientific literature, I'm guessing it is easier to research 'what is the parent pointing at when they read to their child — context or crux?' than it is to measure eyeball eccentricity and attention in an infant. Thus, when researchers talk about their findings, they compare how contextual the East Asian is by comparison to the North American, they don't say 'peripheral' or 'foveal.' A researcher can more easily get at attention and gain by measuring what people remember than they could by finding some way to measure not only eyeball eccentricity but also prioritization of rods over cones. My point? As long as we remember we are mushing, it is probably okay to conflate the strict idea of 'peripheral/foveal' with the looser notion of 'contextual/crux-oriented.' (Just remember that darting saccades may take your vision to the sides, but they are still crux-oriented, not contextual and comprehensive. So don't mush 'dart to the side' with 'context ≈ peripheral' — the dart is you trying to keep multiple 'cruxes' in order, not you being holistic.)