## 4 Results
### Statistical Analysis of Eye-Movement Data
#### 4.1.1 Analysis of Differences in Eye-Movement Indicators in Different Types of Public Spaces
According to Figure 4b, the average fixation count for the different types of public space landscapes varied widely among the different users, with an overall fluctuation range from 40 to 100 times. According to the analysis of variance, it can be seen that there are significant differences between local residents and visitors in the times of staring at square space (\(p<0.05\), \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.496), waterfront space (\(p<0.05\), \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.209), and public green space (\(p<0.05\), \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.294), and there are significant differences. From the average value, we can see that both the local residents and visitors had the highest average fixation counts for the public green space, while the lowest average fixation counts were for the square space, which indicates that both the visitors and local residents were more interested in the landscape of the public green space, and that the landscape distribution of the public green \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Public-Space** \\ **Category** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**User Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Average Fixation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fixation Count**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average Saccade**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Saccade Count**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Observation**} \\  & & & **Duration (s)** & & & & **Amplitude (px)** & & \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Square space** \\ **Street space** \\ \end{tabular} } & Local residents & 0.27 & 0.05 & 46 & 11.47 & 122.10 & 25.49 & 74 & 14.80 & 30 \\  & Visitors & 0.29 & 0.06 & 76 & 17.79 & 125.72 & 25.46 & 75 & 17.80 & 30 \\  & Local residents & 0.41 & 0.13 & 58 & 21.40 & 127.99 & 50.74 & 57 & 21.40 & 30 \\  & Visitors & 0.41 & 0.08 & 65 & 11.66 & 136.59 & 34.95 & 64 & 11.66 & 30 \\  & Local residents & 0.38 & 0.03 & 92 & 12.76 & 126.39 & 22.00 & 91 & 13.60 & 30 \\  & Visitors & 0.42 & 0.03 & 77 & 17.60 & 179.50 & 40.66 & 76 & 16.84 & 30 \\  & Local residents & 0.29 & 0.03 & 102 & 25.84 & 171.21 & 20.25 & 101 & 25.84 & 30 \\  & Visitors & 0.47 & 0.07 & 78 & 8.91 & 189.16 & 11.11 & 77 & 8.91 & 30 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of eye movement indicators of different users in different public spaces. space attracted people's attention to a certain extent. Some information areas of the public green space were more important to the local residents than the tourists. Average saccade amplitude: Before analyzing the variables of the two groups of users, the average saccade amplitude of the four kinds of spaces all passed the homogeneity test (\(p\) = 0.72, \(p\) = 0.572, \(p\) = 0.037, \(p\) = 0.071). According to Figure 4c, overall, the local residents' average saccade amplitudes for the square space, street space, waterfront space, and public green space were both lower than those of the visitors; in addition, the average saccade amplitude in waterfront space (\(p\) < 0.05, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.423) and public green space (\(p\) < 0.05, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.247) between the two groups was significantly different, which indicates that the visitors had stronger performances in acquiring the landscape information compared with the local residents. In terms of the public space types alone, both the local residents and visitors had higher saccade amplitudes for the waterfront space and public green space landscapes, however the lowest for square space, and the difference between the two kinds of users was small. Saccade count: The saccade count of four kinds of spaces passed the homogeneity test (\(p\) = 0.504, \(p\) = 0.176, \(p\) = 0.736, \(p\) = 0.178), which verified the applicability of this test. We observed little difference in the saccade counts of the visitors compared with the local residents for each type of public space (Figure 4d).