Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40721900›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

When is enough enough? Empirical guidelines to determine participant sample size for scene viewing studies.

Alex J Hoogerbrugge, Ignace T C Hooge, Roy S Hessels, Christoph Strauch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Alex J HoogerbruggeExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2859-5128
Ignace T C HoogeExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Roy S HesselsExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Christoph StrauchExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. c.strauch@uu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6380-8635

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWO OSF23.2.027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eye tracking is widely used to study where spatial attention is allocated across stimuli. However, determining a sufficient and efficient number of participants for such studies remains a challenge. While clear guidelines have been established for many classical statistical tests, no straightforward participant sample size guidelines exist for the comparison of gaze distribution maps and area-of-interest analyses - two of the most prominent analyses in scene viewing studies. Just how many participants should be included for reliable and reproducible gaze estimations? We here utilized gaze data to a single static image, viewed by 1248 individuals (dataset 1), and gaze data to 200+ images, viewed by 84 participants each (dataset 2). Researchers can assess which of these datasets and analysis types most resemble their setup and determine their sample size accordingly. Although we cannot provide a one-size-fits-all sample size recommendation, we show progressively diminishing returns for a range of sample sizes and for two typical study types. For example, when using Normalized Saliency Score as a metric of distribution map similarity, a 5% relative increase requires increases in sample size from 13

Indexed as

AttentionEye-Tracking TechnologyAdultFemaleFixation, OcularGuidelines as TopicHumansMaleResearch DesignSample SizeArea of interestEye trackingGazeHeatmapPower estimationSample size

Identifiers

PMID40721900
PMCPMC12304073

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.