## 4 Experiment Results and Data Analysis
### Eye-Tracking-Data Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TFD(s)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scene 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scene 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scene 3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scene 4**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **ROI\_A** & **ROI\_B** & **ROI\_A** & **ROI\_B** & **ROI\_A** & **ROI\_B** & **ROI\_A** & **ROI\_B** \\ \hline Average & 3.104 & 3.106 & 1.526 & 1.905 & 2.835 & 2.629 & 2.764 & 2.980 \\ Std & 2.314 & 2.844 & 1.347 & 1.414 & 1.456 & 1.779 & 2.757 & 2.581 \\ F-test & F(1,29) = 0.000 & F(1,29) = 1.22 & F(1,29) = 0.000 & F(1,29) = 0.090 & & & \\ \(p\)-value & 0.997 & 0.273 & 0.996 & & 0.755 & \\ \(eta^{2}\) & 0.000 & 0.019 & & 0.000 & 0.002 & \\ Average (Sele\_A) & 3.832 & 3.308 & 1.862 & 1.979 & 2.865 & 2.272 & 3.220 & 2.305 \\ Std (Sele\_A) & 2.576 & 2.826 & 1.821 & 1.597 & 1.462 & 1.181 & 3.339 & 2.034 \\ t-test (Sele\_A) & t(16) = 2.434 & t(11) = \(-\)0.327 & t(23) = 3.059 & t(16) = 1.674 & \\ \(p\)-value (Sele\_A) & 0.027 & 0.750 & 0.006 & & 0.114 & \\ Cohen’s d (Sele\_A) & 0.194 & 0.068 & 0.447 & & 0.327 & \\ Average (Sele\_B) & 2.151 & 2.843 & 1.343 & 1.870 & 2.712 & 4.061 & 2.167 & 3.864 \\ Std (Sele\_B) & 1.154 & 2.962 & 0.869 & 1.311 & 1.504 & 2.979 & 1.536 & 3.015 \\ t-test (Sele\_B) & t(12) = \(-\)1.327 & t(17) = \(-\)1.79 & t(5) = \(-\)2.274 & t(12) = \(-\)3.286 & \\ \(p\)-value (Sele\_B) & 0.209 & 0.091 & & 0.072 & & 0.007 \\ Cohen’s d (Sele\_B) & 0.293 & 0.474 & & 0.567 & & 0.709 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Statistical analysis of total fixation duration (TFD) for the four scenes in both tests. Figure 4: Scene 1 after tagging different regions of interest (ROIs): ROI_S, ROI_A, and ROI_B. Table 1), the participant tended to spend more time gazing at Texture A than at Texture B; by contrast, if the final similarity choice was Texture B (Sele_B for short in Table 1), the participant tended to spend more time gazing at Texture B than at Texture A. To verify this hypothesis, we conducted a paired t-test to verify differences between choices (Textures A and B) on the basis of TFDs in Textures A and B (shown in Table 1). Analysis results showed that, for Scene 1, TFD in Texture A was significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(16) = 2.434, \(p\) = 0.027) than that for Texture B when the similarity choice was Texture A under the significance level of 0.05. TFD in Texture B, on the other hand, was not significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(12) = \(-\)1.327, \(p\) = 0.209) than that for Texture A when the choice of similarity was Texture B. For Scene 2, TFD in Texture A was not significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(11) = \(-\)0.327, \(p\) = 0.750) than that for Texture B when the choice of similarity was Texture A. TFD in Texture B was also not significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(17) = \(-\)1.79, \(p\) = 0.091) than that for Texture A when the choice of similarity was Texture B. For Scene 3, TFD in Texture A was significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(23) = 3.059, \(p\) = 0.006) than that for Texture B when the choice of similarity was Texture A. However, TFD in Texture B was not significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(5) = \(-\)2.274, \(p\) = 0.072) than that for Texture A when the choice of similarity was Texture B. For Scene 4, TFD in Texture A was not significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(16) = 1.674, \(p\) = 0.114) than that for Texture B when the choice of similarity was Texture A. However, TFD in Texture B was significantly greater (in the paired t-test, t(12) = \(-\)3.286, \(p\) = 0.007) than that for Texture A when the choice of similarity was Texture B. Analysis results showed that there was no significant relationship between final similarity choices and TFDs in the ROIs. Furthermore, we added [PERSON]'s d (on Social Sciences Statistics website [37]) to reflect the effect size when interpreting our results. [PERSON]'s d is the difference between two means divided by the standard deviation.