Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41562949›Full record

ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026

Analyzing the "Opposite" Approach in Additions to Historic Buildings Using Visual Attention Tools: Dresden Military History Museum Case.

Nuray Özkaraca Özalp, Hicran Hanım Halaç, Mehmet Fatih Özalp, Fikret Bademci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Nuray Özkaraca ÖzalpDepartment of Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Siirt University, 56000 Siirt, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-8041-3937
Hicran Hanım HalaçDepartment of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Eskisehir Technical University, 26555 Eskişehir, Turkey.
Mehmet Fatih ÖzalpIndependent Researcher, 81620 Düzce, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-4250-4712
Fikret BademciSchool of Architecture, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From past to present, modern additions have continued to transform historic environments. While some argue that contemporary extensions disrupt the integrity of historic buildings, others suggest that the contrast between past and present creates a meaningful architectural dialog. This debate raises a key question: in contrasting compositions, which architectural elements draw more visual attention, the historic or the modern? To address this, a visual attention-based analytical approach is adopted. In this study, eye-tracking-based visual attention analysis is used to examine how viewers perceive the relationship between historical and contemporary architectural elements. Instead of conventional laboratory-based eye-tracking, artificial intelligence-supported visual attention software developed from eye-tracking datasets is employed. Four tools-3M-VAS, EyeQuant, Attention Insight, and Expoze-were used to generate heat maps, gaze sequence maps, hotspots, focus maps, attention distribution diagrams, and saliency predictions. These visualizations enabled both a qualitative and quantitative comparison of viewer focus. The case study is the Military History Museum in Dresden, Germany, known for its widely debated contemporary addition representing an oppositional design approach. The results illustrate which architectural components are visually prioritized, offering insight into how contrasting architectural languages are cognitively perceived in historic settings.

Indexed as

contemporary extensionseye trackinghistorical buildingsvisual attention

Identifiers

PMID41562949
PMCPMC12821553

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.