## 5 Application
### Results and Analysis  
To calculate the correlation coefficients between visual cognitive features and layout aesthetics, a sequence of system characteristic behaviors in terms of fixation duration \(C_{e1}\), fixation count \(C_{e2}\), mean pupil diameter \(C_{e3}\), gaze shift frequency \(C_{e4}\) and gaze time percentage \(C_{e5}\) for the six interface scenarios, denoted by \(Y=(Y_{1},Y_{2},Y_{3},Y_{4},Y_{5})\) is analyzed, with symmetry \(C_{e1}\), density \(C_{e2}\), simplicity \(C_{e3}\), order \(C_{e4}\) and dominance \(C_{e5}\) as comparison sequences, denoted by \(X=(X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},X_{4},X_{5})\). The calculation results are shown in Table 4.  
Correlations between fixation duration and layout aestheticsAs shown in Table 5, the correlation between fixation duration and layout aesthetics is ranked \(\hat{R}_{H}(1,5)>\hat{R}_{H}(1,1)>\hat{R}_{H}(1,3)>\hat{R}_{H}(1,2)>\hat{R}_{H}(1,4)\), and all were negatively correlated. It can be seen that \(C_{e5}\) and \(C_{e1}\) are the main influence criteria and \(C_{e3}\), \(C_{e2}\), and \(C_{e4}\) are the secondary criteria. That is, dominance, symmetry, and fixation duration were more highly correlated, simplicity was second, and density and order were less so. Dominance exerts the most significant impact on fixation duration, underscoring the presence of dominance in the presentation of interface information layout. Consequently, interface design should adhere to users' visual patterns and prioritize the importance of information for differentiated layout of interface elements. This approach enhances readers' \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(\mathbf{X_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{X_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{X_{3}}\) & \(\mathbf{X_{4}}\) & \(\mathbf{X_{5}}\) \\ \hline \(Y_{1}\) & \(-0.9394\) & \(-0.4928\) & \(-0.4976\) & \(-0.4617\) & \(-0.9831\) \\ \(Y_{2}\) & \(-0.9300\) & \(-0.5001\) & \(-0.4819\) & \(-0.4769\) & \(-0.9353\) \\ \(Y_{3}\) & \(-0.7124\) & \(-0.4937\) & \(-0.5077\) & \(0.4586\) & \(-0.4997\) \\ \(Y_{4}\) & \(0.9720\) & \(0.9382\) & \(0.4504\) & \(0.9808\) & \(0.4779\) \\ \(Y_{5}\) & \(0.9155\) & \(0.4764\) & \(0.0178\) & \(0.4213\) & \(0.9710\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The correlation between visual cognitive and layout aesthetics. \(X\) represents the set of aesthetic measure sequences, and \(Y\) represents the set of eye movement measure sequences. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples** & \(\mathbf{C_{e1}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e2}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e3}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e4}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e5}}\) \\ \hline A & 2527 & 7.00 & 3.00 & 68.9 & 70.43 \\ B & 2963 & 10.30 & 3.02 & 60.5 & 71.27 \\ C & 3751 & 14.40 & 3.04 & 60.1 & 65.48 \\ D & 5460 & 20.60 & 3.06 & 45.8 & 56.55 \\ E & 6628 & 17.20 & 3.05 & 45.2 & 49.69 \\ F & 5062 & 10.80 & 3.04 & 57.0 & 59.33 \\ \hline F-value & 3.526 & 9.506 & 20.089 & 4.178 & 5.506 \\ \(p\)-value & 0.035 & 0.001 & 0.022 & 0.012 & 0.043 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Experimental measurement data. Figure 7 was used as the experimental stimulus image to obtain the subjects’ visual cognitive results (in terms of fixation duration, fixation count, mean pupil diameter, gaze shift frequency, and gaze time percentage). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & \(\mathbf{C_{e1}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e2}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e3}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e4}}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{e5}}\) \\ \hline Weight & 0.38 & 0.15 & 0.10 & 0.27 & 0.11 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Weighting of the aesthetic criteria. reading efficiency and engagement. Moreover, symmetry in the interface layout should not be disregarded. Users prioritize the overall balance of information within the interface, seeking symmetry in the distribution of horizontal and vertical elements. Imbalanced layouts are liable to impact users' visual experience and requirements adversely.