| Literature DB >> 35058556 |
Ningning Ding1, Yongde Zhong2,3, Jiaxiang Li1, Qiong Xiao1.
Abstract
The selection of native greening plants to improve rural greening technology is crucial for enriching methods of building rural plant landscapes. However, there are few studies from the perspective of visual preference using quantitative methods. By using eye-tracking technology, this study studies students in the Central South University of Forestry and Technology and villagers in Changkou Village, Fujian Province, employing pictures of plant organs-leaves, flowers, and fruits-as stimulating materials to analyze five indicators: the total duration of fixations, the number of fixations, average duration of fixations, average pupil size and average amplitude of saccades. A number of findings came from this research First, people visually prefer leaves, followed by flowers and fruits. In terms of species, Photinia × fraseri, Metasequoia glyptostroboides, Photinia serratifolia, Cunninghamia lanceolata and Koelreuteria bipinnata have higher overall preference. Families such as Malvaceae, Fabaceae, Araliaceae, Myricaceae and Cupressaceae have stronger visual attraction than others. Second, there are distinct differences in the preference of shapes and textures of leaves: aciculiform, strip, cordiform, sector and jacket-shape are more attractive; leather-like leaves have a higher visual preference than paper-like leaves; different colors and whether leaves are cracked or not have little effect on leaf observation. Third, the preference for flowers with different inflorescence and colors is significant. Capitulum, cymes and panicles are more attractive; purple is the most preferred color, followed by white, yellow and red. Finally, there are significant differences in preferences for fruit characteristics, with medium-sized fruits and black fruits preferred, while kidney-shaped and spoon-shaped fruits are considered more attractive. Pomes, pods, samaras, and berries have received relatively more attention.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35058556 PMCID: PMC8776756 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05114-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
The native greening plants and their families selected in this study.
| Number | Family | Species |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 | ||
| 16 | ||
| 17 | ||
| 18 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 20 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 22 | ||
| 23 | ||
| 24 | ||
| 25 | ||
Figure 1Examples of plant pictures used in the eye-tracking experiment: (a, b): leaf; (c, d): flower; (e, f): fruit. All pictures were taken by the project researcher or downloaded from the Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.ibcas.ac.cn) and the website of China Botanical Garden Alliance (https://www.cubg.cn).
Classification of organ characteristics and attributes of native greening plants in this study.
| Features | Leaf | Flower | Fruit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Color | Green, Yellow, Red | White, Pink, Red, Yellow, Green, Purple | Brown, Black, Red, Yellow Green |
| Size | – | – | Large, Medium, Small, Micro |
| Shape | Oval, Lanceolar, Sector, Strip, Ellipse, Cordiform, Aciculiform, Jacket-shape | – | Wings, Spindle, Oval, Spherical, Kidney-shaped, spoon-shaped, Ellipse |
| Type | – | Corymb, Cyme, Catkin, Capitulum, Umbel, Spica, Panicle, Raceme | Samara, Drupe, Pod, Nut, Berry, Aggregate fruit, Pome, Cone, Achene, Capsule |
| Texture | Leather-like, Paper-like | – | – |
| Crack | Yes, No | – | – |
Eye movement indexes ANOVA results at family, species, and organ level.
| Levels | Total duration of fixations | Number of fixations | Average duration of fixations | Average pupil size | Average amplitude of saccades | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | F | F | F | F | ||||||
| Organ | 281.320 | 0.000* | 478.963 | 0.000* | 9.308 | 0.000* | 1.449 | 0.235 | 2.454 | 0.086 |
| Species | 15.129 | 0.000* | 16.173 | 0.000* | 1.906 | 0.000* | 1.586 | 0.005* | 3.591 | 0.000* |
| Family | 12.824 | 0.000* | 12.968 | 0.000* | 2.238 | 0.000* | 1.416 | 0.085 | 4.485 | 0.000* |
*Indicating that there is a difference in the index of this feature.
Descriptive analysis of eye movement indexes of different organ types.
| Types | Total duration of fixations | Number of fixations | Average duration of fixations | Average pupil size | Average amplitude of saccades | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Leaf | 5.492 | 2.376 | 18.43 | 8.144 | 0.322 | 0.236 | 4.146 | 0.879 | 4.95 | 2.154 |
| Flower | 4.462 | 2.503 | 13.69 | 7.810 | 0.352 | 0.265 | 4.101 | 0.866 | 4.94 | 2.224 |
| Fruit | 3.726 | 2.482 | 11.13 | 7.584 | 0.354 | 0.301 | 4.127 | 0.854 | 4.82 | 2.086 |
Precision (SD) = standard deviation of data samples.
Figure 2Statistical analysis of eye movement index means description of different species. Where TDF: Total duration of fixations; NF: Number of fixations; ADF: Average duration of fixations; APS: Average pupil size; AAS: Average amplitude of saccades.
Figure 3Statistical analysis of eye movement index mean description in different families. Note: TDF: Total duration of fixations; NF: Number of fixations; ADF: Average duration of fixations; APS: Average pupil size; AAS: Average amplitude of saccades.
ANOVA results of eye movement indexes of different types of leaves.
| Types | Total duration of fixations | Number of fixations | Average duration of fixations | Average pupil size | Average amplitude of saccades | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | F | F | F | F | ||||||
| Shape | 4.721 | 0.000* | 4.094 | 0.000* | 1.849 | 0.074 | 2.006 | 0.051 | 0.767 | 0.615 |
| Color | 0.339 | 0.712 | 0.445 | 0.641 | 0.100 | 0.905 | 0.617 | 0.540 | 1.669 | 0.186 |
| Texture | 5.410 | 0.020* | 0.947 | 0.331 | 3.381 | 0.066 | 5.561 | 0.018 | 0.946 | 0.331 |
| Crack | 0.677 | 0.411 | 0.463 | 0.496 | 1.562 | 0.212 | 0.913 | 0.339 | 0.176 | 0.675 |
*Indicating that there is a difference in the index of this feature.
Figure 4Eye movement index of different leaf shapes.
Figure 6Eye movement index of different leaf texture.
Figure 5Eye movement index of different leaf colors.
Figure 7Eye movement index of leaves with and without leaf crack.
ANOVA results of eye movement indexes of different types of flowers.
| Types | Total duration of fixations | Number of fixations | Average duration of fixations | Average pupil size | Average amplitude of saccades | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | F | F | F | F | ||||||
| Inflorescence | 7.775 | 0.000* | 6.388 | 0.000* | 2.126 | 0.030* | 0.314 | 0.961 | 1.568 | 0.129 |
| Color | 10.214 | 0.000* | 13.474 | 0.000* | 1.231 | 0.292 | 1.592 | 0.159 | 3.898 | 0.002* |
| Type | 10.785 | 0.000* | 3.343 | 0.036* | 4.732 | 0.009* | 0.020 | 0.981 | 0.706 | 0.494 |
*Indicating that there is a difference in the index of this feature.
Figure 8Eye movement indexes of different flower inflorescences.
Figure 9Eye movement indexes of different flower colors.
ANOVA results of eye movement indexes of different types of fruits.
| Types | Total duration of fixations | Number of fixations | Average duration of fixations | Average pupil size | Average amplitude of saccades | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | F | F | F | F | ||||||
| Size | 40.757 | 0.000* | 53.740 | 0.000* | 4.103 | 0.006* | 8.678 | 0.000* | 4.653 | 0.003* |
| Color | 28.194 | 0.000* | 38.794 | 0.000* | 2.125 | 0.060 | 2.635 | 0.022* | 2.208 | 0.051 |
| Shape | 14.752 | 0.000* | 20.651 | 0.000* | 1.211 | 0.298 | 1.548 | 0.159 | 2.433 | 0.024* |
| Type | 14.226 | 0.000* | 18.283 | 0.000* | 1.824 | 0.059 | 2.400 | 0.011* | 4.065 | 0.000* |
*Indicating that there is a difference in the index of this feature.
Figure 10Eye movement indexes of different fruit sizes.
Figure 11Eye movement indexes of different fruit colors.
Figure 12Eye movement indexes of different fruit shapes.
ANOVA results of eye movement indexes of different educational background.
| Varieties | Total duration of fixations | Number of fixations | Average duration of fixations | Average pupil size | Average amplitude of saccades | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| University level and above | 5.109 | 2.517 | 16.89 | 8.267 | 0.321 | 0.181 | 4.264 | 0.725 | 5.425 | 2.119 |
| High school education and below | 3.872 | 2.442 | 11.32 | 7.519 | 0.371 | 0.348 | 3.950 | 0.990 | 4.250 | 2.020 |
Precision (SD) = standard deviation of data samples.
Figure 13Clustering analysis of total duration of fixations.
Figure 14Clustering analysis of number of fixations.