ArticlePloS one2026
Vision Transformer attention alignment with human visual perception in aesthetic object evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual attention mechanisms play a crucial role in human perception and aesthetic evaluation. Recent advances in Vision Transformers (ViTs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in computer vision tasks, yet their alignment with human visual attention patterns remains underexplored, particularly in aesthetic contexts. This study investigates the correlation between human visual attention and ViT attention mechanisms when evaluating handcrafted objects. We conducted an eye-tracking experiment with 30 participants (9 female, 21 male, mean age 24.6 years) who viewed 20 artisanal objects comprising basketry bags and ginger jars. Using a Pupil Labs eye-tracker, we recorded gaze patterns and generated heatmaps representing human visual attention. Simultaneously, we analyzed the same objects using a pre-trained ViT model with DINO (Self-DIstillation with NO Labels), extracting attention maps from each of the 12 attention heads. We compared human and ViT attention distributions using four complementary metrics-Kullback-Leibler divergence, Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (CC), and Similarity (SIM)-across varying Gaussian parameters ([Formula: see text]), yielding 1,152,000 distance evaluations. Additionally, we performed Areas of Interest (AOI) analysis to quantify ViT attention concentration within object regions. Statistical analysis revealed optimal correlation at [Formula: see text], with attention head #12 showing the strongest alignment with human visual patterns across all metrics. Significant differences were found between attention heads, with heads #7 and #9 demonstrating the greatest divergence from human attention ([Formula: see text]), Tukey HSD test). AOI analysis confirmed that all ViT heads concentrated attention significantly more within object regions than background areas ([Formula: see text]), with heads #12, #1, and #3 achieving lift values of +30 to +40 percentage points. Results indicate that while ViTs exhibit more global attention patterns compared to human focal attention, certain attention heads can approximate human visual behavior, particularly for specific object features like buckles in basketry items. These findings suggest potential applications of ViT attention mechanisms in product design and aesthetic evaluation, while highlighting fundamental differences in attention strategies between human perception and current AI models.
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.