ArticlePloS one2026
Aesthetic preference and gaze-based visual attention in atlas-cover design: Evidence from an eye-tracking study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atlas covers communicate thematic identity and shape first impressions, yet their design remains largely guided by heuristic experience rather than empirical evidence. Although eye-tracking research has examined map use, packaging design, and visual interfaces, little is known about whether atlas-cover variables that enhance perceived attractiveness also align with gaze-based visual-attention indicators. This study addresses this gap by examining how color harmony, graphic style, and layout configuration influence subjective and eye-tracking responses to atlas covers. Forty valid participants viewed eight atlas-cover stimuli generated from a 2×2×2 within-subject factorial design. Each participant completed two counterbalanced viewing cycles, resulting in 16 trials per participant. The two repeated observations for each participant-cover combination were averaged before linear mixed-effects modeling. The results showed that contrast harmony, concrete landscape imagery, and centralized layouts significantly increased perceived attractiveness. The strongest subjective effect was found for graphic style, with landscape images outperforming map symbols (MD=0.66, pHolm=0.003), followed by color harmony (MD=0.29, pHolm<0.001) and layout configuration (MD=0.14, pHolm=0.031). For eye-tracking indicators, centralized layouts produced longer total fixation duration (MD=0.34 s, pHolm<0.001) and more fixations (MD=1.13, pHolm<0.001). Color harmony showed smaller effects on visual exploration, whereas graphic style mainly affected initial attentional orienting. Mixed-effects association models showed no robust associations between perceived attractiveness and the four gaze-based indicators after Holm-Bonferroni correction (all pHolm≥0.110). These findings suggest a partial dissociation between aesthetic evaluation and gaze-based visual attention, supporting a dual-layer logic in which layout guides visual organization, while color harmony and graphic style enhance affective appeal and thematic expressiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.