ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Eye-Tracking Analysis of Visual Attention and Preference in Human-Created, AI-Generated, and AI-Refined Human Advertisements.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used in advertising, yet its effects on visual attention and preference remain insufficiently characterized. This study compared human-created (H), AI-generated (AI), and AI-refined human (HAI) advertisements, the latter obtained by submitting human-created advertisements to a generative model with a standardized refinement prompt, using eye tracking and a forced-choice task. Thirty-nine young adults (18-26 years) with high generative-AI experience completed 858 trials involving 22 advertisement pairs while gaze was recorded at 60 Hz. Fixation duration, fixation count, time to first fixation, saccadic magnitude, and pupil diameter were compared using repeated-measures analyses of participant-level means with Holm correction, and choices were analyzed using binomial models with participant-clustered standard errors. AI-generated advertisements were selected more frequently than human-created advertisements (58.97% of trials; odds ratio = 1.44, p=0.0015), whereas HAI advertisements did not differ from human-created advertisements in choice frequency (49.88%; p=0.978). Relative to human-created advertisements, both AI and HAI stimuli were associated with higher fixation counts and smaller saccadic magnitudes, with these effects surviving Holm correction. Time to first fixation was statistically equivalent across conditions within the smallest effect detectable by the design, pupil diameter did not differ, and differences in fixation duration did not survive correction. The higher fixation counts reflected a larger share of fixation time on AI and HAI advertisements rather than a higher fixation rate. Although the gaze pattern was similar for AI and HAI stimuli while only AI stimuli were preferred, the difference between the two choice effects was not statistically reliable. The observed gaze differences cannot be uniquely attributed to creative origin because AI and HAI stimuli also exhibited higher edge density than human-created stimuli. These findings support the use of eye tracking as a sensor-based method for characterizing visual responses to AI-assisted advertising while highlighting the need for tighter stimulus control and more diverse samples in future studies.
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.