ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation forest educational boards based on eye tracking analysis in a pilot study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A thorough understanding of the visual behaviors of the audience interacting with the content on informational boards is crucial for developing training programs and facilitating communication between land managers, such as foresters, and the public. The aim of the study was to assess the extent of perception of information presented on educational boards in the forest by school-aged youth, thereby determining the usefulness of these panels in the environmental and forestry education of young people. We analyzed the variable eye movement of the respondent students using the Tobii Pro Glasses 2 eye tracker. We generated heat maps to identify the elements on the boards that most strongly attracted the participants' attention. For the determined areas of interest (header, description, image, footer), we generated standard fixation metrics. The fixation time for the image was consistently significantly longer than that for the header. The number of fixations was higher on the descriptions than on the images. School youth experienced slightly more difficulty in assimilating information conveyed through images that required deeper analysis compared to reading text or following diagrams. An effective design for an educational board may involves placing diagrams in a sequential layout with accompanying descriptions underneath.
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.