## 5 Discussion  
### Correlation Analysis of Eye-Tracking Data and Subjective Satisfaction for Public Space  
Combining subjective evaluations with eye-tracking data to quantify the effects of these two variables can provide a more comprehensive and objective assessment of the landscape quality. We can not only evaluate the importance of each public space according to the subjective-evaluation scale, but also analyze heat maps, trajectory maps, and various eye-movement indicators to explore the subject's subconscious and aesthetic patterns. Thus, we can analyze the composition and proportions of the public space landscape elements and the matching law of each element to achieve guidance for enhancing the public space landscape design. According to the correlation analysis of the eye-movement data and subjective satisfaction [71; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79] (Table 3), there is a close relationship between them: the average fixation duration had a significant positive correlation with all four types of public spaces, and a negative correlation with the fixation count and saccade count, which suggests that the more attention people pay to the public space, or the less they search for elements in the space, the more likely they are to make higher evaluations of the spatial landscape. The lower the number of the fixation count and saccade count per unit of time, the higher the ornamental value of the landscape and degree of people's interest. According to the analysis of variables, the subjective evaluation of both the street space and waterfront space was significantly negatively correlated with the fixation count and saccade count, which indicated that the street space and waterfront space have more obvious scene characteristics and are more likely to attract people's interest compared with the other two types of spaces. The greater the average saccade amplitude, the more distinctive the features \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Space** & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average Fixation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fixation Count**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average Saccade**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Saccade Count**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Satisfaction**} \\  & & **Duration** & **Count** & **Amplitude** & **Count** & **Evaluation** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Average fixation duration} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1} \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Square space} & \multirow{2}{*}{Average saccade} & \multirow{2}{*}{Pearson} & \(-0.202\) & \(1\) & & & \\  & & & Pearson & & & & \\  & & correlation & \(0.110\) & \(-0.219\) & \(1\) & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Average fixation duration} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1} \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Street space} & \multirow{2}{*}{Average saccade} & \multirow{2}{*}{Pearson} & \(-0.507\) * & \(1\) & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & correlation & \(-0.329\) & \(-0.117\) & \(1\) & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Average fixation duration} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1} \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Waterfront} & \multirow{2}{*}{Average saccade} & \multirow{2}{*}{Pearson} & \(-0.752\) ** & \(1\) & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & correlation & \(-0.260\) & \(0.011\) & \(1\) & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{\({}^{*}\) Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (two-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Correlation between eye movement data and subjective evaluation. of the scene, and the more intense the performance of the subject when acquiring the landscape information.