ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
In the Eye of the Beholder-Visual Search Behavior in Equestrian Dressage Judges.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hyperflexing the horse's neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- From Concept to Perception: Equestrian Definitions of Harmony and Visual Attention in Horse-Rider Evaluation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- No More Evasion: Redefining Conflict Behaviour in Human-Horse Interactions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the visual search behavior of equestrian dressage judges at different expertise levels during the assessment of Grand Prix horse-rider combinations. Twenty judges (11 foundational level, 9 advanced level) participated in the study, with their eye movements recorded using Tobii Fusion Eyetracker as they evaluated video recordings of dressage tests. Fixation metrics, namely Total Duration of Fixation (TDF), Average Duration of Fixation (ADF), and Total Number of Fixations (TNF), were analyzed across four Areas of Interest (AOIs): front, back, rider, and horse's feet. Statistical analysis utilized linear mixed-effects models. Results demonstrated that judges consistently focused more on the front of the horse, with additional differences in fixation duration and frequency based on judge experience and specific movements. Advanced judges focused more on the horses' feet, suggesting they draw meaning from specific areas indicative of performance quality. Conversely, foundational level judges focused more on the rider, reflecting different evaluative priorities at lower levels of the sport. These findings suggest that judges focus on a limited number of highly relevant areas, differing across movements and expertise levels. The study underscores the necessity of understanding both gaze behavior and subsequent interpretations of visual information to increase judging transparency, fairness, and equine welfare.
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.