Comparison of Self-Report Questionnaire and Eye Tracking Method in the Visual Preference Study of a Youth-Beverage Model.

Hongbo Sun, Wanxin Wang, Xinnan Liu, Benzhong Zhu, Yue Huang, Xiaojing Leng, Lu Jia

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

2citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

Integrating Eye Tracking and Self-Report for Sensory-Emotion Evaluation of Red Bean and Coix Seed Water: A Complementary Validation Framework.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
Article
Analysis of human-oriented facial signals of the domestic dog using eye tracker technology.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hongbo SunKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, College of Food Science & Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.

Wanxin WangCollege of Information & Electrical Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.

Xinnan LiuKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, College of Food Science & Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.

Benzhong ZhuKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, College of Food Science & Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.

Yue HuangKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, College of Food Science & Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.

Xiaojing LengKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, College of Food Science & Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.

Lu JiaCollege of Information & Electrical Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.

Funding

China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA; Key Research and Development Program of Ningxia; National Key Research & Development Program of China CARS-36; NO. 2021BEF02031; 2016YFD0400804

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compares the characteristics of a self-report questionnaire (SRQ) and eye tracking (ET) based on a simple human-beverage visual cognition model. The young participants were mainly defined by their gender and body mass index (BMI). The beverage samples consisted of milk, coffee, cup, and coaster. SRQs allow the participants to clearly express their overall cognition of the samples in the form of vocabulary, while ET captures their hidden thinking process. The analysis, using a random forest (RF) classifier, found that participant parameters (gender and BMI) played a more important role for SRQ, while ET was related to beverage parameters (color and shape). This work reiterates that these two methods have their advantages and complement each other in food sensory analysis.

Indexed as

eye trackingfood preferenceself-report questionnairevisual factor

Identifiers

PMID35205984

DOI10.3390/foods11040505

PMCPMC8870819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.