# Human-AI Co-Drawing: Studying Creative Efficacy and Eye Tracking in Observation and Cooperation
## 5 Discussion
### Practical Implications  
By recording eye movements, visual processing of stimuli can be quantitatively captured, allowing conclusions to be drawn about the underlying cognitive processes and the strategic approaches drawn by participants [58]. Based on this, the mapping process can be characterized and obstacles can be identified. The use of eye tracking widens the field of view [59]. The study of mapping processes for collaborative patterns and observation strategies illustrates the added value that analyzing mapping processes using eye tracking can provide. The use of eye tracking in real-life operations can demonstrate its application in investigating the collaborative analysis possibilities of drawing. It provides insights into cognitive processes like action strategies. Eye tracking offers added value by recording progressive problem-solving based on eye movements without interfering with task processing [21].  
Due to differences in subjects' creativity, willingness to draw, degree of divergent thinking, equipment familiarity, and drawing skills, subjects with higher willingness [34], a higher degree of divergent thinking, more proficient use of equipment, and higher drawing skills will have more drawing time [16] and thinking time and observation time of the AI in the collaborative drawing process, and this is the reason why drawing time was not taken as the dependent variable but was chosen as the decision time.  
There are differences in the bases of subjects' creative choices. Interview observation found that 80-90% of subjects preferred to choose the generated image that was close to what they wanted for their drawing [60; 61], and in the case of masking and separating the display screen from the hand-drawing process, subjects preferred to choose the one that was close to what they drew. However, in the case of observing the changes in the generation of the AI while they drew, some of them would make changes in their drawing based on the ones that were generated by the AI and for a small portion of the subjects, the choice of the image may be because the generated image looks better, or the generated image could be very different, breaking through the original fixed thinking of the subjects [62]. This selection basis can correspond to the three sub-dimensions of creativity: aesthetics, novelty, and semantic consistency. The experiment has fewer trials and the drawing task is simple; thus, the cognitive load generated by the subjects completing the task more easily is smaller. Subsequent experiments should be adjusted in terms of the number of trials. The simplicity of the cue words in the experiment resulted in a large difference in the subjects' semantic understanding. In subsequent experimental setups, the operational task could be disassembled, the decision-making process could be separated from the overall drawing process, and the creative decision-making process could be experimentally simulated, allowing subjects to select images based on different assessment dimensions, as well as grouping and selecting image categories, styles, and complexities [55].