ArticlePloS one2020
Seeing through the forest: The gaze path to purchase.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eye tracking studies have analyzed the relationship between visual attention to point of purchase marketing elements (price, signage, etc.) and purchase intention. Our study is the first to investigate the relationship between the gaze sequence in which consumers view a display (including gaze aversion away from products) and the influence of consumer (top down) characteristics on product choice. We conducted an in-lab 3 (display size: large, moderate, small) X 2 (price: sale, non-sale) within-subject experiment with 92 persons. After viewing the displays, subjects completed an online survey to provide demographic data, self-reported and actual product knowledge, and past purchase information. We employed a random forest machine learning approach via R software to analyze all possible three-unit subsequences of gaze fixations. Models comparing multiclass F1-macro score and F1-micro score of product choice were analyzed. Gaze sequence models that included gaze aversion more accurately predicted product choice in a lab setting for more complex displays. Inclusion of consumer characteristics generally improved model predictive F1-macro and F1-micro scores for less complex displays with fewer plant sizes Consumer attributes that helped improve model prediction performance were product expertise, ethnicity, and previous plant purchases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.