The Role of Visual Attention and Quality Cues in Consumer Purchase Decisions for Fresh and Cooked Beef: An Eye-Tracking Study
, Carmen Josefina Contreras Castillo 3, Carolina Naves Aroeira 4 and Lilian Maluf de Lima 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer Comments
This paper investigates the influence of visual attention and quality cues on Brazilian consumers' purchase decisions for fresh and cooked beef, employing rigorous eye-tracking experimental methods and statistical analysis. The research findings offer valuable insights into understanding consumer behavior and optimizing marketing strategies for beef products. However, significant room remains for improvement in certain areas, requiring substantial revisions. The following reviewer suggestions are provided for reference to help enhance the completeness of the manuscript.
- Introduction and Discussion Chapters: It is recommended that the research objectives in the Introduction be stated more explicitly. Furthermore, these objectives should be thoroughly revisited and discussed in the final Discussion chapter, along with a more precise articulation of the research findings' implications for future applications.
- Literature Review (Chapter 2): The literature review section requires additional scholarly contributions, explicitly focusing on the intersection of food or food packaging and eye-tracking research. This would strengthen the theoretical foundation of the study.
- Eye-Tracking Experiment - Stimuli Presentation Order: Please clarify whether the presentation order of the visual stimuli in the eye-tracking experiment was randomized. Randomization is crucial for minimizing potential order effects and ensuring the robustness of the experimental design.
- Color Description: As color is identified as a significant factor in this study, merely stating "bright red" and "brown" is insufficient. It is advisable to provide a more detailed and objective description of these colors, such as their CMYK or RGB values, to ensure replicability and precise interpretation.
- Eye-Tracking Metrics Definition and Consistency:
Definition: It is recommended that a more detailed and precise definition of the eye-tracking metrics used be provided (e.g., first fixation, total fixation duration, and number of fixations). Relevant academic citations should support each definition.
Consistency in Analysis: Please explain the inconsistency observed in the eye-tracking analysis metrics between sections 4.2 (Visual Attention – Fresh Beef) and 4.3 (Visual Attention – Cooked Beef).
- Logit Model Formula Presentation: The Logit Model formula occupies a substantial portion of the manuscript (over a full page). Please consider whether this extensive presentation is necessary for understanding the methodology, or if it could be streamlined, adjusted, or moved to an appendix to improve readability and flow of the main text.
- Inaccurate In-text Citations: There are instances of incorrect or missing citations within the text, specifically "[Error! Reference source not found.]" on pages 2 and 3. Please thoroughly re-verify and correct all in-text citations.
- Discrepancy in Conclusion Section Statement: The sentence in the Conclusion section (6. Conclusions) stating: "This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex" appears to be a template note. Please confirm if this statement is an error and should be removed or revised, as it is not typically part of a finished manuscript's conclusion.
- Reference List Errors: There are errors in the reference list. For example, reference number 30 indicates a publication year of "2026", a future date. Please review and correct all publication years and other details in the reference list.
Author Response
Reviewer Comments
This paper investigates the influence of visual attention and quality cues on Brazilian consumers' purchase decisions for fresh and cooked beef, employing rigorous eye-tracking experimental methods and statistical analysis. The research findings offer valuable insights into understanding consumer behavior and optimizing marketing strategies for beef products. However, significant room remains for improvement in certain areas, requiring substantial revisions. The following reviewer suggestions are provided for reference to help enhance the completeness of the manuscript.
- Introduction and Discussion Chapters: It is recommended that the research objectives in the Introduction be stated more explicitly. Furthermore, these objectives should be thoroughly revisited and discussed in the final Discussion chapter, along with a more precise articulation of the research findings' implications for future applications.
Thank you. We revised the introduction text with a clearer, more explicit presentation of the research objectives and included in the final discussion the articulation of the research findings and implications for future applications.
- Literature Review (Chapter 2): The literature review section requires additional scholarly contributions, explicitly focusing on the intersection of food or food packaging and eye-tracking research. This would strengthen the theoretical foundation of the study.
Thank you. We included one session discussing this relationship in the literature review: 2.3. The Relationship Between Eye Tracking and Packaging in Consumer Research
- Eye-Tracking Experiment - Stimuli Presentation Order: Please clarify whether the presentation order of the visual stimuli in the eye-tracking experiment was randomized. Randomization is crucial for minimizing potential order effects and ensuring the robustness of the experimental design.
We cannot randomize because we lose the possibility of comparing the areas of interest of the metrics provided by Eye Tracking, since some areas would be viewed more than others. The important is that the areas of interest and the hypothetical products appear on both the left and right sides.
- Color Description: As color is identified as a significant factor in this study, merely stating "bright red" and "brown" is insufficient. It is advisable to provide a more detailed and objective description of these colors, such as their CMYK or RGB values, to ensure replicability and precise interpretation.
In fact, this information was missing and to better illustrate the color, photos were shown to consumers. The indication of the attached information can be found in item 4.2 Visual Attention – Fresh beef. Where, the Appendix 2 describes the guidelines that were given to consumers regarding breed, color and marbling. For the item color and marbling photos were provided with guidelines.
- Eye-Tracking Metrics Definition and Consistency:
Definition: It is recommended that a more detailed and precise definition of the eye-tracking metrics used be provided (e.g., first fixation, total fixation duration, and number of fixations). Relevant academic citations should support each definition.
Thank you. We included the 3 Eye Tracking metrics and their definitions: Time to First Fixation: Fixation Duration and Number of Fixations (Visits) on an Area of Interest:
Consistency in Analysis: Please explain the inconsistency observed (??) in the eye-tracking analysis metrics between sections 4.2 (Visual Attention – Fresh Beef) and 4.3 (Visual Attention – Cooked Beef).
We appreciated the comments. In fact, when explaining the metrics in Table 3, the item referring to the “Total fixation” metric was missing. We have already inserted it and other details have been added in the text.
- Logit Model Formula Presentation: The Logit Model formula occupies a substantial portion of the manuscript (over a full page). Please consider whether this extensive presentation is necessary for understanding the methodology, or if it could be streamlined, adjusted, or moved to an appendix to improve readability and flow of the main text.
We appreciate this comment.
The models and specifications of the explanatory variables were excluded and it was included in the “Appendix 1”. Also, this text was included in the paper: “Two logit models were estimated, one for fresh meat and another for cooked meat. The explanatory variables of each model, as well as the details of the logistic equations, are presented in Appendix 1.”
- Inaccurate In-text Citations: There are instances of incorrect or missing citations within the text, specifically "[Error! Reference source not found.]" on pages 2 and 3. Please thoroughly re-verify and correct all in-text citations.
The missing reference on page 2 was added as number "1".
It was cited in the References topic: Lai, M.L.; Tsai, M.J.; Yang, F.Y.; Hsu, C.Y.; Liu, T.C.; Lee, S.W.Y.; Lee, M.H.; Chiou, G.L.; Liang, J.C.; Tsai, C.C. A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educ. Res. Rev. 2013, 10, 90-115.
And on page 3, reference "30" was cited in the References topic:
Scott, G. G., Hand, C. J. Motivation determines Facebook viewing strategy: An eye movement analysis, Computers in Human Behavior 2016, 56, 267-280.
- Discrepancy in Conclusion Section Statement: The sentence in the Conclusion section (6. Conclusions) stating: "This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex" appears to be a template note. Please confirm if this statement is an error and should be removed or revised, as it is not typically part of a finished manuscript's conclusion.
We apologized and removed it from the text.
- Reference List Errors: There are errors in the reference list. For example, reference number 30 indicates a publication year of "2026", a future date. Please review and correct all publication years and other details in the reference list.
It was corrected now, thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction & Literature Review:
The introduction provides a useful overview of the relevance of visual attention and consumer behavior in beef selection, with a good mix of supporting literature. However, there is repetition and redundancy in places.
Lines 51–54 and 84–87:
"Visual attention (or visual information) is considered the main resource..."
and later:
"Visual cues, such as color and appearance, are critical determinants of consumer perception..."
Additionally, paragraphs 49–54 and 84–87 repeat the same idea that appearance is the primary organoleptic cue influencing purchasing behavior.
Recommendation:
Consider consolidating these overlapping paragraphs to make the introduction more concise and avoid redundancy.
Some references are missing or cited with placeholder text such as "[Error! Reference source not found.]", which must be corrected.
line 59:
“...accurately predict experienced quality perception to purchase meat [Error! Reference source not found.]…”
line 116:
“...top-down attention occurs when consumers focus on stimuli... [Error! Reference source not found.]”
Methodology:
The eye-tracking protocol is generally sound, but the small sample size (n=23) and recruitment strategy (personal contacts) limit the generalizability of findings.
The variable naming conventions (e.g., FRESH.FBRIGHTCO, COOK.FTOUGH) should be explained more clearly for readability.
Results & Discussion:
The statistical analysis is appropriate, and the results are well-structured.
The discussion makes valid comparisons with other studies, particularly in contextualizing consumer reactions to beef attributes.
Some interpretations feel speculative—especially in explaining consumer aversion to certain cues like breed or marbling. Consider discussing alternative explanations or limitations in consumer knowledge.
editorially
“...it’s a rich instrument that has the capacity to record online cognitive actions.”
->“rich instrument” to be “powerful” ή “effective”.
“...allowing to evaluate changes in purchasing behaviour...”
->Subject missing →“allowing researchers to evaluate...”
“...in Brazilian consumers that were exposed to visual stimuli...”
to be: “...Brazilian consumers who were exposed...”
“...each time they re-visited the AOI related to intense flavour.”
-> “each time they revisited the AOI...”
Author Response
Introduction & Literature Review:
The introduction provides a useful overview of the relevance of visual attention and consumer behavior in beef selection, with a good mix of supporting literature. However, there is repetition and redundancy in places.
Thank you. We rewrote the introduction to make the objectives clearer and more explicit.
Lines 51–54 and 84–87:
"Visual attention (or visual information) is considered the main resource..."
and later:
"Visual cues, such as color and appearance, are critical determinants of consumer perception..."
Thank you. Although similar, the terms have distinct meanings. Visual attention is broader, incorporating everything that can attract the consumer view, while visual cues is a more restricted concept, referring to areas of interest included in products (like phrases, brands, price or seal, for instance) to indicate a specific characteristic that are related to a certain quality of the product.
Additionally, paragraphs 49–54 and 84–87 repeat the same idea that appearance is the primary organoleptic cue influencing purchasing behavior.
Recommendation:
Consider consolidating these overlapping paragraphs to make the introduction more concise and avoid redundancy.
Indeed, that is correct. All is concentrated in the lines 49 to 54; and we delete lines 84 to 89.
Some references are missing or cited with placeholder text such as "[Error! Reference source not found.]", which must be corrected.
line 59:
“...accurately predict experienced quality perception to purchase meat [Error! Reference source not found.]…”
line 116:
“...top-down attention occurs when consumers focus on stimuli... [Error! Reference source not found.]”
Methodology:
The eye-tracking protocol is generally sound, but the small sample size (n=23) and recruitment strategy (personal contacts) limit the generalizability of findings.
We appreciated the comments. A paragraph in section “3.1 Research data” detailing the sample size and its composition was added.
The variable naming conventions (e.g., FRESH.FBRIGHTCO, COOK.FTOUGH) should be explained more clearly for readability.
The variable naming is described from line 786. Please let us know if it will be necessary to change all the nomenclatures.
Results & Discussion:
The statistical analysis is appropriate, and the results are well-structured.
We appreciate this consideration.
The discussion makes valid comparisons with other studies, particularly in contextualizing consumer reactions to beef attributes.
We appreciate this consideration.
Some interpretations feel speculative—especially in explaining consumer aversion to certain cues like breed or marbling.
We agree with the reviewer that the sentence was removed: The reduction in the probability of sale caused by the information FRE.TNELLOREB, demonstrating the Nellore breed, may indicate that consumers have doubts about how to use this information and, due to lack of knowledge and understanding of differences between breeds, they preferred to purchase beef without a defined breed
The sentence was kept: There was a reduction in the probability of sale caused by the information FRE.TNELLOREB which be due to previous negative experiences associated with beefs that were of Nellore breed, lack of knowledge about the contribution of the breed to the quality of beef, or even the habit to consume beefs that do not have identification of the breed [84] [46] [85].
Editorially
“...it’s a rich instrument that has the capacity to record online cognitive actions.”
->“rich instrument” to be “powerful” ή “effective”.
It has been changed, thank you very much.
“...allowing to evaluate changes in purchasing behaviour...”
->Subject missing →“allowing researchers to evaluate...”
It has been changed, thank you very much.
“...in Brazilian consumers that were exposed to visual stimuli...”
to be: “...Brazilian consumers who were exposed...”
It has been changed, thank you very much.
“...each time they re-visited the AOI related to intense flavour.”
-> “each time they revisited the AOI...”
It has been changed, thank you very much. Also, re-visited was changed to revisited as indicate throughout the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
I have carefully reviewed the revised version and am pleased to confirm that the authors have addressed all the previous comments thoroughly and made the necessary revisions accordingly. I have no further concerns or suggestions at this stage.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your detailed and constructive responses to my comments, as well as for the careful revisions made throughout the manuscript.
I appreciate the clarifications regarding the distinction between "visual attention" and "visual cues", and the effort to reduce redundancy in the introduction. The corrections to the reference errors, as well as the editorial improvements, are also noted.
The added detail regarding the sample size and recruitment method enhances the transparency of the methodology.
Overall, I am satisfied with the revisions, and I believe the manuscript is much improved.
