Visual attention accompanying food decision process: An alternative approach to choose the best models

Abstract Visual attention plays an active role in food choice. During eye-tracking, several gazing behavior parameters are measured along with the consumer’s choice. In this study, a Tobii T60 eye-tracker was used to record the gazing behavior of 59 participants during multi-alternative choice tasks (4AFC) in which pictures of six different food product groups (apples, salads, instant soups, sausages, soft drinks and beers) were presented. The aims of this study were (1) to investigate the relationship between gazing parameters and choice (2) to create prediction models based on gazing data and (3) identify the best model. The applied thirteen statistical models showed strong relationships between gazing behavior and choice and gave accurate predictions for choice. Sum of ranking differences method was used to rank the prediction models based on ten performance indicators. Iterative Dichotomiser 3 algorithm, Quinlan’s C4.5 decision tree algorithm and k -Nearest Neighbor’s algorithm showed the best performances in the cases of the separate product groups. After merging the data sets, Iterative Dichotomiser 3 algorithm showed clearly the best performance to describe the relationship between visual attention and food choice.

[1]  Ricco Rakotomalala,et al.  TANAGRA : un logiciel gratuit pour l'enseignement et la recherche , 2005, EGC.

[2]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Do you like what you see? The role of first fixation and total fixation duration in consumer choice , 2015 .

[3]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice , 2012 .

[4]  K. Héberger,et al.  Comparison of multianalyte proficiency test results by sum of ranking differences, principal component analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis , 2013, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.

[5]  K. Héberger,et al.  Supervised pattern recognition in food analysis. , 2007, Journal of chromatography. A.

[6]  Wei-Yin Loh,et al.  A Comparison of Prediction Accuracy, Complexity, and Training Time of Thirty-Three Old and New Classification Algorithms , 2000, Machine Learning.

[7]  Huan Liu,et al.  Feature selection for classification: A review , 2014 .

[8]  Marko Robnik-Sikonja,et al.  Overcoming the Myopia of Inductive Learning Algorithms with RELIEFF , 2004, Applied Intelligence.

[9]  Amit Ganatra,et al.  A Comparative Study of Training Algorithms for Supervised Machine Learning , 2012 .

[10]  K. Héberger,et al.  Evaluation of single-cell gel electrophoresis data: combination of variance analysis with sum of ranking differences. , 2014, Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis.

[11]  K. Héberger,et al.  Method and model comparison by sum of ranking differences in cases of repeated observations (ties) , 2013 .

[12]  Jacob L. Orquin,et al.  Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[13]  Devina Wadhera,et al.  A review of visual cues associated with food on food acceptance and consumption. , 2014, Eating behaviors.

[14]  Peter E. Hart,et al.  Nearest neighbor pattern classification , 1967, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[15]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase , 2009 .

[16]  L. Sipos,et al.  Comparison of novel sensory panel performance evaluation techniques with e‐nose analysis integration , 2011 .

[17]  Iván Lidón,et al.  The identification of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques , 2015 .

[18]  Huan Liu,et al.  Feature Selection for Classification , 1997, Intell. Data Anal..

[19]  K. Héberger.  Sum of ranking differences compares methods or models fairly , 2010 .

[20]  Jacob L. Orquin,et al.  Eye Tracking and Nutrition Label Use: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Label Enhancement , 2012 .

[21]  Sotiris B. Kotsiantis,et al.  Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques , 2006, Artificial Intelligence Review.