## 4 Results
### Visual Attention--Fresh Beef  
The results obtained from the Logit model for fresh and cooked beef are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. When comparing the predicted values obtained with the estimated models for fresh beef to the observed values of the sample, an accuracy index of 95.19% was obtained, which is considered a good fit [75].  
Appendix B describes the guidelines that were given to consumers regarding breed, color, and marbling. For the item color and marbling, photos were provided with guidelines. First Fixation (Table 2)  
Considering the first fixation, two visual cues related to color were significant: FRE.FBRIGHTCO and FRE.FBROWNCO. In this study, visual cues for fresh beef including color, breed, marbling, and price were considered; however, the information about color was the only one found to be significant for first fixation. Consumers who first fixated on color information had a 0.50% lower purchase probability after looking at visual cue  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Coefficients** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & \(p\)**-Value** & **MgE \#** \\ \hline Intercepto & 17.359 & 4.2607 & 0.0000 *** & - \\ \hline FRESH.PRICE & 0.0952 & 0.0370 & 0.0101 ** & 0.0318 \\ \hline CBROWNCO & \(-\)3.4719 & 1.1442 & 0.0024 *** & \(-\)0.1116 \\ \hline FRESH.FBRIGHTCO & \(-\)0.5713 & 0.2405 & 0.0175 ** & \(-\)0.0050 \\ \hline FRESH.FBROWNCO & \(-\)0.7133 & 0.3780 & 0.0592 * & \(-\)0.0062 \\ \hline FRESH.TDARKCO & 3.7014 & 1.9604 & 0.0590 * & 0.0325 \\ \hline FRESH.TNELLOREB & \(-\)3.3003 & 1.6080 & 0.0401 ** & \(-\)0.0289 \\ \hline FRESH.TWITHOUTB & 13.2524 & 4.4611 & 0.0029 *** & 0.1163 \\ \hline FRESH.TBROWNCO & \(-\)2.8524 & 1.3094 & 0.0293 ** & \(-\)0.0250 \\ \hline FRESH.VDARKCO & \(-\)1.7553 & 0.6874 & 0.0106 ** & \(-\)0.0154 \\ \hline FRESH.VSMALLMAR & \(-\)2.4407 & 0.7195 & 0.0007 *** & \(-\)0.0214 \\ \hline FRESH.VMODERATEMAR & \(-\)0.9295 & 0.41418 & 0.0248 ** & \(-\)0.0081 \\ \hline FRESH.VABUNDANTMAR & \(-\)1.6202 & 0.4790 & 0.0007 *** & \(-\)0.0142 \\ \hline FRESH.VPRICE380 & \(-\)1.1141 & 0.5596 & 0.0465 ** & \(-\)0.0097 \\ \hline FRESH.VWITHOUTB & \(-\)5.4550 & 1.5222 & 0.0004 *** & \(-\)0.0479 \\ \hline FRESHQCONS\_C & 5.3391 & 2.0705 & 0.0099 *** & 0.0265 \\ \hline FRESHQPURCHASE\_D & \(-\)7.3969 & 2.0462 & 0.0004 *** & \(-\)0.7977 \\ \hline MED\_COMP & \(-\)1.4765 & 0.5006 & 0.0031 *** & \(-\)0.0129 \\ \hline \(n\) & & & & 229 \\ \hline AIC & & & & 92.213 \\ \hline Mc Fadden (Pseudo-R2) & & & & 0.74 \\ \hline Cox–Snell (Pseudo-R2) & & & & 0.51 \\ \hline NagelKerke (Pseudo-R2) & & & & 0.83 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Estimates of Logit model coefficients for fresh beef and respective values of marginal effects.  
information on FRE.FBRIGHTCO and 0.62% lower probability after looking at visual cue information on FRE.FBROWNCO.  
Considering the total time (seconds) that participants fixated on specific attributes, visual cues including color and breed were significant: FRE.TDARKCO, FRE.TBROWNCO, FRE.TNELLOREB, and FRE.TWITHOUTB. The information on visual cues FRE.TDARKCO and FRE.TWITHOUTB increased the probability of choice by \(\sim\)3% and \(\sim\)12%, respectively. However, FRE.TNELLOREB and FRE.TBROWNCO reduced the probability of choice by \(\sim\)3% and \(\sim\)2.5%, respectively. Fixation on color, before the presentation of the products in the equipment, was studied; consumers were asked to visualize a color pattern, guided by the authors.  
Total Number of Fixations (Table 2)  
Considering the number of times that each participant fixated on an AOI (visit), color, marching, price, and breed were significant, namely FRE.VDARKCO, FRE.VSMALLMAR, FRE.VMODERATEMAR, FRE.VABUNDANTMAR, FRE.VPRICE380, and FRE.VWITHOUTB.