## 3 Results
### Data from and Results of Experiment 1  
The visualization results of the representative pictures are shown in Table 5. The G1 viewpoints were mainly concentrated in the area of the city tower and the daughter wall. The G2 viewpoints focused on the plaque words and daughter wall areas. The G3 viewpoints focused on the Great Wall and projection areas. The visual range of the G4 viewpoints was the most concentrated, with the focus on the central area of the gate tower. The G5 viewpoints focused on the word and symbol areas.  
In general, the subjects' visual ranges were concentrated, with the preference being looking at word information, building form and structure, and architectural features.  
To avoid viewing habits affecting the experiments' data and results, the different styles of transliteration symbol for the five groups of questions were randomly ordered [50]. Higher AOI FC and AOI TFD values represented a greater or more difficult amount of information in this region and a longer time required for subjects to comprehend the content [51]. The eye-tracking data from the subjects during symbol selection (see Table 6) showed that the highest overall transcription elements for AOI MFD (0.218 s), AOI FC (22.465%), and AOI TFD (23.941%) were line and face combinations, indicating that this style of symbol attracted sufficient attention and substantial interest. For the error style transliteration symbols, AOI FF (0.216 s) was relatively long, but AOI FC (10.699%) and AOI TFD (10.618%) were short, indicating that subjects had more difficulty interpreting the information conveyed by this style during their observation and were reluctant to spend too much time on it.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test Item** & **Evaluation Type** & **Test Sub-Item** & **Evaluation Scale** & **Parameter Units** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Subjective perception \\ (after the experiment) \\ \end{tabular} } & Cognitive & VR environment & \multirow{2}{*}{Uncomfortable—Adaptable} & \\  & (physiological) & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & Cognitive & & & Score \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & (physiological) & & & \([-3,\,-2,\,-1,\,0,\,1,\,2,\,3]\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & Feelings & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & (psychological) & Emotion & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Subjective Feelings Survey.  
According to the results of the AOI and the final selection of symbols (see Figure 5), most subjects first fixated on the line and surface combination symbols (171 visits, accounting for 37% of the total). Most also selected the line and surface combination symbols (145 visits, accounting for 31% of the total). In summary, the current line and surface combinations agreed with the visual perception and aesthetic preference of the subjects, conveying the image information accurately; thus, this type was the most suitable for symbols.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Name** & **Representative Picture** & **Heat Map** & **Track Map** \\ \hline G1 & & & \\ G2 & & & \\ G3 & & & \\ G4 & & & \\ G5 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Visualization Results from Representative Pictures.  
Figure 5: Comparison of the selection and fixation levels of different symbol types.