Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic: the impact of the chromatic configuration of furniture surface finishes (specifically, two-color TV cabinets) on the visual attention and aesthetic preferences of older adults. Combining eye-tracking metrics with semantic differential rating scales provides a valuable multi-method approach. The primary finding—a clear dissociation between visual attention metrics and subjective aesthetic preference—is of significant interest to both furniture design practitioners and visual perception researchers.However, to meet the methodological standards expected by the Journal of Eye Movement Research, several technical details regarding the eye-tracking setup, experimental parameters, and stimulus presentation need to be clarified and expanded.
1. Eye-Tracking Methodology and Hardware (Section 2)
- Eye Tracker and Monitor Specifications: In line 192, the authors state the use of a Tobii 1750 eye tracker together with a Lenovo LCD monitor (1920\times1080 @ 60 Hz). Since the original Tobii 1750 is a legacy integrated unit with its own built-in 17-inch display (1280\times1024), please clarify whether the original integrated Tobii 1750 screen was used or if a standalone Tobii eye-tracking bar/module was mounted onto the Lenovo monitor.
- Core Oculometric Parameters: For full replicability in JEMR, please provide:The sampling rate of the eye tracker (e.g., 50 Hz, 60 Hz, etc.).The fixation detection algorithm used (e.g., I-VT or I-DT filter) and the specific thresholds applied (velocity threshold in °/s or minimum duration threshold in ms).The viewing distance from the participant's eyes to the screen (e.g., 60–70 cm) and the approximate visual angle subtended by each TV cabinet / Area of Interest (AOI).The calibration procedure details: number of calibration points (e.g., 5 or 9 points) and the accuracy/validation criteria accepted before starting a recording session.
- Color Vision Screening for Older Adults: Because age-related physiological changes (e.g., crystalline lens yellowing, neuro-retinal degradation) significantly alter color discrimination, please state explicitly whether a standard color vision test (e.g., Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates or Farnsworth-Munsell test) was administered to screen out color vision deficiencies among the 35 older participants.
- Stimulus Exposure Duration & Task Instructions: Please specify whether the presentation time for each trial/slide (containing four TV cabinets) was fixed or self-paced (participant-controlled via key press).
2. Color Calibration and Stimuli
Although Section 4.5 properly acknowledges the limitation of not reporting CIELAB coordinates, Section 2.1 should clarify whether the display monitor was calibrated using a hardware colorimeter/spectrophotometer (e.g., using a standard sRGB profile) to ensure chromatic fidelity across experimental trials.
3. Presentation of Results and Figures
- Quality of Figures 1 and 2: The stimulus layout in Figure 1 and the photograph in Figure 2 are low-resolution and pixelated. Please replace them with high-resolution, publication-ready figures.
- Typo in Table 4: In Table 4 (Experiment 2 ANOVA result for Regional Effect), it currently reads F=6831. A decimal point is missing; please correct it to F=6.831.
- Post-Hoc Tests: In the ANOVA results reported in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, please specify which post-hoc pairwise comparison tests (e.g., Bonferroni correction) were conducted to explore specific differences among the 5 hues and 3 value levels.
4. Discussion (Section 4)
- The discussion regarding the non-equivalence between visual attention and subjective preference is compelling. It would be enhanced by briefly framing this finding within visual attention theory—specifically distinguishing between visual salience (bottom-up processing) and affective/aesthetic evaluation (top-down processing). This would help explain why visually salient or high-contrast colors (e.g., red) attract longer viewing durations due to information processing or cognitive load without necessarily translating into higher subjective aesthetic pleasure.
5. Minor Language and Formatting Corrections
- A thorough proofreading by a native English speaker or professional editing service is recommended to refine minor phrasing inaccuracies and ensure fluent academic English throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Ethics requires clarification. The study involved 35 human participants, yet the manuscript states “Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.” Please provide the ethics approval or formal exemption, including institution, approval/exemption number, and date. Consent for publication of the identifiable participant photographs in Figure 2 should also be confirmed.
• Eye-tracking methodology is insufficiently reported. Please provide sampling frequency, calibration procedure and acceptance criteria, viewing distance/head stabilization, fixation-detection algorithm and thresholds, missing-data/track-loss handling, exclusion criteria, and data-quality statistics. The exact Tobii 1750/display configuration should also be clarified.
• The experimental structure needs clearer description. Four cabinets were shown simultaneously, some conditions were repeated, and participants selected a preferred cabinet. Please explain the number of trials/pages, condition combinations, balancing/randomization, repetition handling, presentation duration, and how observations were aggregated.
• The statistical analysis must explicitly account for repeated measurements. It is unclear whether the correlations and regressions treat participant × condition observations as independent. If so, this risks pseudoreplication. Mixed-effects models, repeated-measures correlations, or appropriately aggregated analyses should be considered.
• Regression models need fuller specification. Explain how categorical hue was coded, provide model NN, overall R2R^2, model tests and diagnostics, and clarify how partial R2R^2 values were obtained. Viewing duration and fixation count are also extremely highly correlated, so multicollinearity diagnostics are necessary.
• The main subjective-preference conclusions are not supported by sufficiently complete inferential reporting. Full ANOVA results for pleasure should be reported, including main effects, interactions, effect sizes, and corrected post-hoc comparisons. In Experiment 2, clearly identify which dependent variable corresponds to each reported F-test.
• Color-stimulus reproducibility needs improvement. Please report complete HSV/RGB values, saturation, display calibration and lighting conditions, and preferably CIELAB/luminance values. Otherwise, effects attributed to hue may partly reflect uncontrolled lightness or chroma differences.
• Participant characterization and sample-size justification are limited. Please report recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, visual acuity and color-vision screening, relevant ocular conditions, corrective-lens use, and provide a power/sample-size justification.
• The three-item aesthetic scale requires more cautious interpretation. The rationale for combining pleasure, simplicity, and order into one construct should be strengthened, and the analysis should account for repeated ratings from the same 35 participants. Claims of “construct validity” currently seem too strong.
• Several reporting inconsistencies should be corrected. Table 6 appears not to match the experiment-specific regression results described in the text; regional AOI definitions and analyses need clarification; multiplicity across the many statistical tests should be addressed; and the Data Availability Statement should accurately reflect whether participant-level data and analysis code are available.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic, as it explores colour perception and visual attention in older adults within an age-friendly furniture context. However, several methodological and reporting issues should be addressed.

Line 124–134. In my opinion, the authors should explain this contribution more clearly. The paper does not introduce a new method. Its contribution comes mainly from combining existing methods in one age-friendly furniture setting.

Line 144–164. The practical contribution should be described more carefully. The study uses digital images of one cabinet model. It does not test real materials, real surfaces, or real living-room conditions.

Line 383–394. One important contribution is the negative finding. Fixation duration and fixation count did not match subjective pleasure in a stable way. This matters because it shows that looking longer does not automatically mean liking more.

Line 425–434. The authors should also be more careful when describing hue as the main driver. Hue was significant. But the effect size was still small.

The study has a clear overall design, but several details are missing. I found it difficult to fully assess how the colours were prepared, how participants were screened, and how the eye-tracking data were collected and processed. More information on these points would make the study easier to understand and replicate.

Line 137–143. In my opinion, the colour procedure needs more detail. The authors should explain more clearly how HSV values were converted into the displayed RGB stimuli.

Line 154–160. The selection of the five final hues needs a fuller explanation. The paper should describe the criteria, the scoring process, and why seven design students and three experts were used for this step

Line 159–164. Manuscript should report fuller colour information. This should include saturation and, if possible, monitor calibration or device-independent colour values. That would make the study easier to reproduce.

Line 166–180. In my view, the dominant and secondary colour manipulation should be quantified more clearly. The exact coloured-area percentages should be reported.

Line 175–180. Authors should discuss the fact that four cabinets were shown at the same time. This may influence visual attention and choice. Randomisation helps, but it may not remove all comparison effects.

Line 185–189 Authors should clarify whether participants were tested for colour-vision deficiency with a standardised test. The paper only says “basic visual screening.” That is not enough for a study on colour perception. The sample description should be fuller. Also report recruitment method, education level, visual correction such as glasses, and possible eye conditions that could affect colour perception or eye-tracking results. In my view, the sample size should also be justified more clearly. The study includes 35 participants. A power analysis or another justification would strengthen the methodology

Line 191–197 The eye-tracking section needs more technical detail. The authors should report sampling rate, viewing distance, calibration quality, and exclusion criteria.

Line 198–203. Authors should explain more clearly why pleasure was chosen as the main outcome. They should also clarify how pleasure differs from the combined scale of pleasure, simplicity, and order.

Line 213–218. The paper should report the exact timing of the task. Stimulus duration and blank intervals should be stated clearly.

Line 233–236. Repeated presentation of the same cabinet should be explained better. The authors should say why repetition was needed and whether repetition effects were checked.

Line 238–243.  Authors should clarify whether the order of the 15 conditions in Experiment 1 was randomised or fixed

Line 244–251. In my opinion, the statistical analysis needs more detail. The authors should report post-hoc tests, assumption checks, and multiple-comparison corrections.

Line 256–266.  The dominant-colour and accent-colour conditions should be defined in measurable terms. Right now the description is too general.

Line 268–273  The authors should explain whether the 30 conditions in Experiment 2 were randomised or counterbalanced. They should also mention possible fatigue effects.

Line 275–282. The authors should justify the choice of repeated-measures ANOVA and regression more clearly. Mixed-effects models may be more suitable for this kind of repeated data.

Line 284–301.  Validation claims should be softer. Reliability looks good. But the KMO values are modest. So the evidence is more exploratory than strong.

Line 144–164 and 538–549. The use of only one IKEA TV-cabinet model should be discussed more clearly as a limitation. Some effects may come from the shape and layout of this model, not only from colour

Line: 152–164 and 538–549.  Authors should stress more clearly that screen images cannot fully capture gloss, texture, material, ambient lighting, and other real-world surface effects.

The finding that visual attention does not necessarily reflect liking is particularly useful. Still, some practical recommendations seem too strong. Since the study used a limited sample and digital images of one cabinet model, the conclusions should be presented as preliminary rather than general design rules.

Line 366–378.  The recommendation about high-value yellow as a small accent should be toned down. It is based on one specific setup. So it should be presented as a tentative finding.

Line 425–434. The regression results support the role of hue. But the wording should stay careful because the unique effect sizes are not large.

Line 418–424. Authors should avoid overly strong causal language when discussing semantic ratings such as warmth, lightness, simplicity, and order. These analyses show associations, not proof of causation.

Line: 526–536 and 569–573. The design recommendations are too strong in their current form. The claims that yellow or red should be prioritised should be softened because only five hues and three value levels were tested on one digital cabinet model.

Line 538–549  In my view, the limitations section is useful but still incomplete. It should also mention the missing detail on colour-vision-deficiency testing, the modest sample size, the use of one product model, and the possible effect of showing several cabinets at once.

Line 542–544. The point about missing cross-device colour reporting is important and should be emphasized more strongly. Without fuller colour management details, reproducibility remains limited.

Line 574–577. The final practical claims are too broad. The paper should say more clearly that the findings come from a controlled screen-based simulation of one cabinet model.

Line 588. The data availability statement should be improved. Saying that the data are contained within the article is not enough for a study based on eye-tracking and questionnaire data. The authors should clarify whether anonymised raw data and materials can be shared.

Authors should discuss the eye-tracking literature more critically. Some cited studies suggest that fixation reflects attractiveness or preference. But the present study does not really support that link. Also, the paper needs stronger methodological references on eye-tracking hardware, calibration, and data quality.

The tables and figures are generally helpful, but several of them need clearer presentation. In particular, the figures should make the statistical results easier to interpret, and the tables should provide enough detail for readers to understand the analyses. Some of the visual material also appears partly repetitive and could be simplified or improved for readability.

Table 2 should be interpreted more carefully. The reliability results are good. But the KMO values are only modest

Figures 3 and 4 need clearer error bars. The authors should also say whether these are standard deviations, standard errors, or confidence intervals.

Figure 5 may oversimplify the value effect. The text reports interactions. The figure looks more aggregated.

Figure 6 needs clearer statistical support. This is important because the figure is used to support a practical recommendation.

Figure 7 needs a clearer explanation. The reader should know what each point represents.

Tables 3 to 6 need fuller reporting. The unit of analysis and statistical details should be clearer.

Figures 8 and 9 may be partly redundant. If the authors keep them, they should improve the labels and readability

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments and concerns.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for re-evaluating the revised manuscript and for acknowledging our revisions. We are pleased that the current version has adequately addressed all of the reviewer’s previous comments and concerns. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, which have helped improve the methodological transparency, statistical rigor, and overall clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has improved substantially and addresses most of the previous concerns. The remaining issues are mainly related to methodological transparency and reporting. These points should be addressed before final acceptance.

Lines 177–183 and 236–243. The Latin-square design and repeated presentation are now described more clearly. The authors should acknowledge that displaying four cabinets on the same page and allowing participants to move through the stimulus pages at their own pace may influence visual attention and preference through comparison effects and differences in viewing time. Authors should briefly discuss these issues and clarify how self-paced viewing variability was handled in the analyses.

Lines 216–221. The eye-tracking procedure is now clearer. But, authors should report the numerical I-VT velocity threshold and the minimum fixation-duration criterion. Stating that the software defaults were used is not sufficient for reproducibility

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf