ArticleJournal of eye movement research2025
Predicting Cartographic Symbol Location with Eye-Tracking Data and Machine Learning Approach.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating eye-tracking into psychometric research: computational approaches to explore response burden in questionnaire completion.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual search is a core component of map reading, influenced by both cartographic design and human perceptual processes. This study investigates whether the location of a target cartographic symbol-central or peripheral-can be predicted using eye-tracking data and machine learning techniques. Two datasets were analyzed, each derived from separate studies involving visual search tasks with varying map characteristics. A comprehensive set of eye movement features, including fixation duration, saccade amplitude, and gaze dispersion, were extracted and standardized. Feature selection and polynomial interaction terms were applied to enhance model performance. Twelve supervised classification algorithms were tested, including Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and Support Vector Machines. The models were evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and ROC-AUC. Results show that models trained on the first dataset achieved higher accuracy and class separation, with AdaBoost and Gradient Boosting performing best (accuracy = 0.822; ROC-AUC > 0.86). In contrast, the second dataset presented greater classification challenges, despite high recall in some models. Feature importance analysis revealed that fixation standard deviation as a proxy for gaze dispersion, particularly along the vertical axis, was the most predictive metric. These findings suggest that gaze behavior can reliably indicate the spatial focus of visual search, providing valuable insight for the development of adaptive, gaze-aware cartographic interfaces.
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.