ArticlePloS one2022
Differences in thinking flexibility between novices and experts based on eye tracking.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Usability Validation of an Integrated Hemodynamic and Pulmonary Monitoring System Using Eye-Tracking Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
The influence of thinking flexibility on design is often underestimated by researchers in the field of design education. In this study, morphological analysis was used as a tool to develop design proposals and eye tracking technology was applied to track the attention. The feature of thinking activities in problem-solving between two groups (novice and expert) was analyzed by Heat map and Gaze plot in qualitative, and measured by indicators such as fixation and saccade in quantitative. Findings suggested that, i) Experts showed more fixation duration and fixation numbers in thinking activities, and the attention containing more AOIs was positively related to the rationality of the scheme. ii) Saccades with greater amplitude were more beneficial to the novelty of scheme. iii) Experts considered the information of each block in a balanced way, while novices tended to ignore unimportant blocks. These results will have a far-reaching impact on the development of designers' thinking and help novices to exercise creative thinking and produce high-quality designs.
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.