## 4 The results
### Influence of Banner Content Elements on Visual Attention
The results from the post hoc tests analyzing both FC and TVD indicated that the image area in banners 1a (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 7.03, SD\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 3.13, M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.93, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.92), 1b (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 7.44, SD\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 3.19, M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 2.03, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.05), 2a (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 7.24, SD\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 3.17, M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 2.13, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.95), 4a (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 7.33, SD\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 2.45, M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 2.01, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.81) and 4b (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 8.00, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 2.18, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.02) were significantly more attractive than that in banner 3a (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 4.53, SD\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 2.95, M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.11, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.76). Additionally, the post hoc tests regarding FC showed that the image area in banner 3b (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 6.43, SD\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 2.84) was significantly more attractive compared to the image area in banner 3a (M\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 4.53, SD\({}_{\text{FC}}\) = 2.95). The post hoc test results regarding TVD also showed that the image area in banner 4a (M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 2.01, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.81) received significantly more attention than that in banner 2b (M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.46, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.71), whereas the image area in banner 4b (M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 2.18, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.02) was significantly more attractive than those in banners 2b (M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.46, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.71), 3a (M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.11, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.76) and 3b (M\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 1.64, SD\({}_{\text{TVD}}\) = 0.83). The post hoc tests analyzing TTF revealed that the brand area in banners 3a (M\({}_{\text{TTF}}\) = 0.50, SD\({}_{\text{TTF}}\) = 0.58) and 3b (M\({}_{\text{TTF}}\) = 0.20, SD\({}_{\text{TTF}}\) = 0.34) were significantly more eye-catching \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**AOI** & **Measure** & **F** & **Post-Hoc Comparisons** 1a  \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Discount} & FC & 6.995 & 1a \(<\) 2b, 1a \(<\) 3a, 1b \(<\) 2b, 1b \(<\) 3a \\  & TVD & 6.497 & 1a \(<\) 2b, 1a \(<\) 3a, 1b \(<\) 2b, 1b \(<\) 3a \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Image} & FC & 5.798 & 3a \(<\) 1a, 3a \(<\) 1b, 3a \(<\) 1b, 3a \(<\) 2a, 3a \(<\) 3b, 3a \(<\) 4a, 3a \(<\) 4b \\  & TVD & 8.233 & 3a \(<\) 1a, 3a \(<\) 1b, 3a \(<\) 2a, 3a \(<\) 4a, 3a \(<\) 4b, 2b \(<\) 4a, \\  & & 2b \(<\) 4b, 3a \(<\) 4b, 3b \(<\) 4b \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Brand} & TTF & 10.244 & 3a \(<\) 1a, 3b \(<\) 1a, 3a \(<\) 1b, 3b \(<\) 1b, 3a \(<\) 2a, 3b \(<\) 2a, \\  & & 3b \(<\) 2b, 3b \(<\) 4a, 3a \(<\) 4b, 3b \(<\) 4b \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Test results demonstrating the influence of the banner types on the visual attention. than those in banners 1a (M\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 1.63, SD\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 0.92), 1b (M\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 1.45, SD\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 0.73), 2a (M\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 1.55, SD\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 0.96) and 4b (M\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 2.04, SD\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 1.24). However, the brand area in banner 3b (M\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 0.20, SD\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 0.34) was significantly more eye-catching compared to the brand areas in banners 2b (M\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 1.20, SD\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 0.79) and 4a (M\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 1.41, SD\({}_{\rm TTF}\) = 1.06).