ArticlePloS one2025
The effects of landscape on visual preference and fatigue recovery among university students: Differences in gender, grade level and major.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A study on the visual behavior and cognitive preferences of female college students in outdoor campus spaces based on eye-tracking.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Restorative effects of small urban parks: a multi-method study using eye-tracking and psychophysiological measures in Fuzhou, China.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure to natural landscapes has been shown to affect both physiological and psychological well-being, with the extent of these effects varying across different landscape types. However, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. The association among stress reduction, environments characteristics and individual differences requires further investigation, particularly considering the complexity of landscape attributes and the variability of personal responses. In this study, 98 university students participated in a survey to evaluate the effects of different landscape types on visual preference and fatigue recovery. Physiological data (blood pressure, heart rate), psychological data (Perceived Restorative Scale), and visual preferences were analyzed before and after participants viewed the images of eight representative landscape space types: mountain, field, waterscape, lawn, desert, forest, artificial nature, plant. The results indicated that landscape type significantly influenced both physiological responses and emotional states, as well as participants' perceived recovery from stress. Among the eight landscape spaces, water features and forests were reported to be the most restorative. Compared to freshmen, juniors exhibited greater improvements in physical and psychological recovery, alongside more positive evaluations of the environments. Notably, the desert landscape elicited varied responses depending on participants' grade level and gender, suggesting that restoration effects may be modulated by individual characteristics. This may reflect an evolutionary predisposition to prefer natural features that enhance survival. These findings contribute to environmental psychology and provide valuable insights for educational practice and environmental design.
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.