Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37965285›Full record

ArticleJournal of eye movement research2023

Why 2D layout in 3D images matters: evidence from visual search and eyetracking.

Linda Krauze, Mara Delesa-Velina, Tatjana Pladere, Gunta Krumina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Linda KrauzeUniversity of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
Mara Delesa-VelinaUniversity of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
Tatjana PladereUniversity of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
Gunta KruminaUniversity of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precise perception of three-dimensional (3D) images is crucial for a rewarding experience when using novel displays. However, the capability of the human visual system to perceive binocular disparities varies across the visual field meaning that depth perception might be affected by the two-dimensional (2D) layout of items on the screen. Nevertheless, potential difficulties in perceiving 3D images during free viewing have received only a little attention so far, limiting opportunities to enhance visual effectiveness of information presentation. The aim of this study was to elucidate how the 2D layout of items in 3D images impacts visual search and distribution of maintaining attention based on the analysis of the viewer's gaze. Participants were searching for a target which was projected one plane closer to the viewer compared to distractors on a multi-plane display. The 2D layout of items was manipulated by changing the item distance from the center of the display plane from 2° to 8°. As a result, the targets were identified correctly when the items were displayed close to the center of the display plane, however, the number of errors grew with an increase in distance. Moreover, correct responses were given more often when subjects paid more attention to targets compared to other items on the screen. However, a more balanced distribution of attention over time across all items was characteristic of the incorrectly completed trials. Thus, our results suggest that items should be displayed close to each other in a 2D layout to facilitate precise perception of 3D images and considering distribution of attention maintenance based on eye-tracking might be useful in the objective assessment of user experience for novel displays.

Indexed as

2D layout3D imagearea of interestbinocular disparitydepth perceptiongaze distributionitem distance

Identifiers

PMID37965285
PMCPMC10643048

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.