If you don't see your institution, add your dataset to the main dataverse named "RepOD".
Select the dataverse to which you want to add the new dataset:
You need to Sign In/Sign Up to add a dataset.
Share this dataset on your favorite social media networks.
Rusnak, Marta; Koszewicz, Zofia; Brzozowska-Jawornicka, Aleksandra, 2022, "Usability of eye trackers as tools for designers of anastylosis", https://doi.org/10.18150/MWQF1L, RepOD, V1
Learn about Data Citation Standards.
Eye trackers are more and more often employed by scientists willing to learn more about how cultural heritage is perceived. However, designers very seldom make use of this technology, primarily perhaps due to its expensive and time-consuming nature. By choosing not to employ eye trackers they limit themselves to their own ideas and choices, at the same time forfeiting all the potential advantages of social consultations with non-professionals. One can easily imagine that their work and its effects would only benefit should a way be found to make eye-tracking tests more logistically and financially feasible or if another measure was established that would make it possible to learn the visual reactions of regular people. The experiment focuses on the perception of anastylosis. There are numerous types of damaged structures that get reassembled and multiple ways of doing that. While most doctrinal documents assert that the original object and the added elements should be easily distinguishable, the two solutions, most often chosen by designers is to make the cavity fillings differ in either texture or luminance from the original material. It is obvious that this results in a large range of solutions to choose from – from shallow indentations in the stone surface to deep ones, from stone just a shade brighter than the original to a distinct cream-white one. Since it is impossible to test all the possible variations using eye trackers, the authors of this paper tried a different approach. Eleven different virtual images were prepared of the same reassembled ionic column. They varied in the level of modifications applied to either the texture or the luminance of the cavity fillings. The entire set of eleven stimuli was then shown to a group of professionals in the field of architecture and/or conservation of monuments. They were asked to choose the best stimuli, that is those that facilitate the differentiation of the old and new parts of the structure by non-professionals. Thus reduced set of three stimuli was then used in an eye-tracking tests involving over 100 participants. The eye-tracking data, combined with the results of previous research on the perception of anastylosis allowed the authors to formulate several conclusions. It turned out that the images selected by the professionals were far from those that would potentially stimulate and help non-professionals the most. However, the obtained information allowed formulation of a few basic guidelines as to the use of differences in texture and luminance in anastylosis. It also made it possible to find a financially and logistically feasible alternative to the demanding eye-tracking tests when introducing social consultations into the designing process.
eye tracker, anastylosis, social sustainability, perception, reconstruction, archaeology, conservation, cultural marketing
CC BY - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
Please select a file or files to be deleted.
The file(s) will be deleted after you click on the Delete button.
Files will not be removed from previously published versions of the dataset.
Please select a file or files to be edited.
For selected file(s) set a license to
Please select a file or files to be downloaded.
Please select a file or files for access request.
Please select restricted file(s) to be unrestricted.
You need to Log In/Sign Up to request access to this file.
Please confirm and/or complete the information needed below in order to continue.
Asterisks indicate required fields
Access to file(s) subject to additional consent under following conditions:
The restricted file(s) selected may not be downloaded because you have not been granted access.
Click Continue to download the files you have access to download.
Are you sure you want to delete this dataset and all of its files? You cannot undelete this dataset.
Are you sure you want to lift the embargo?
Once you lift the embargo, you will not be able to set it again.
Are you sure you want to delete this draft version? Files will be reverted to the most recently published version. You cannot undelete this draft.
Use a Private URL to allow those without Dataverse accounts to access your dataset. For more information about the Private URL feature, please refer to the User Guide.
Private URL has not been created.
Are you sure you want to disable the Private URL? If you have shared the Private URL with others they will no longer be able to use it to access your dataset.
You will not be able to make changes to this dataset while it is in review.
This dataset cannot be published until RepOD is published. Would you like to publish both right now?
Once you publish this dataset it must remain published.
Are you sure you want to republish this dataset?
Select if this is a minor or major version update.
This dataset cannot be published until RepOD is published by its administrator.
This dataset cannot be published until RepOD and are published.
Are you sure you want to deaccession? The selected version(s) will no longer be viewable by the public.
Contact person for this dataset, having substantive knowledge of the data
Please fill this out to prove you are not a robot.