Cargando…

Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach

INTRODUCTION: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends that graphic health warning labels (GHWLs) be positioned at the top of the principal area of cigarette packs, rather than at the bottom, to increase visibility. However, during the legislative process of introducing GHWLs in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hwang, Ji-eun, Yang, Yu-seon, Oh, Yu-mi, Lee, Seon-young, Lee, Joung-eun, Cho, Sung-il
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Publishing on behalf of the International Society for the Prevention of Tobacco Induced Diseases (ISPTID) 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31516438
http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tid/94327
_version_ 1783439145087008768
author Hwang, Ji-eun
Yang, Yu-seon
Oh, Yu-mi
Lee, Seon-young
Lee, Joung-eun
Cho, Sung-il
author_facet Hwang, Ji-eun
Yang, Yu-seon
Oh, Yu-mi
Lee, Seon-young
Lee, Joung-eun
Cho, Sung-il
author_sort Hwang, Ji-eun
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends that graphic health warning labels (GHWLs) be positioned at the top of the principal area of cigarette packs, rather than at the bottom, to increase visibility. However, during the legislative process of introducing GHWLs in South Korea, the position of GHWLs has become a contested issue. The pro-tobacco industry group argued that the warnings should be placed at the bottom of cigarette packs because evidence for the effectiveness of the upper position was insufficient. Therefore, this study investigated whether the position of the GHWL affects eye movement. METHODS: Participants (30 daily smokers and 24 non-smokers) were shown six cigarette packs in random order with different position combinations (top, middle, bottom) and image concepts (skin aging, toxic constituents). Participants’ eye movements were recorded using eye-tracking equipment to measure visual fixation duration in milliseconds (ms) RESULTS: Participants visually fixated longer on the health warning area than on the tobacco branding area (p<0.05). Mean fixation duration on the health warning area was significantly longer at the top or middle positions compared to the bottom, by 28% (mean difference=340 ms, p=0.006) and by 30% (mean difference=368 ms, p=0.002), respectively. By contrast, mean fixation duration on the branding area was longer with the warning at the bottom compared to top or middle positions by 25% and 33%, with mean differences of 157 ms (p=0.100) and 212 ms (p=0.026), respectively. No significant difference in fixation time was observed between the top and middle positions (p>0.05) CONCLUSIONS: The duration of visual fixation on GHWLs was longer when they were displayed at the top and middle, rather than at the bottom. Therefore, GHWLs should be positioned from the top to the middle of the tobacco package.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6659495
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher European Publishing on behalf of the International Society for the Prevention of Tobacco Induced Diseases (ISPTID)
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66594952019-09-12 Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach Hwang, Ji-eun Yang, Yu-seon Oh, Yu-mi Lee, Seon-young Lee, Joung-eun Cho, Sung-il Tob Induc Dis Research Paper INTRODUCTION: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends that graphic health warning labels (GHWLs) be positioned at the top of the principal area of cigarette packs, rather than at the bottom, to increase visibility. However, during the legislative process of introducing GHWLs in South Korea, the position of GHWLs has become a contested issue. The pro-tobacco industry group argued that the warnings should be placed at the bottom of cigarette packs because evidence for the effectiveness of the upper position was insufficient. Therefore, this study investigated whether the position of the GHWL affects eye movement. METHODS: Participants (30 daily smokers and 24 non-smokers) were shown six cigarette packs in random order with different position combinations (top, middle, bottom) and image concepts (skin aging, toxic constituents). Participants’ eye movements were recorded using eye-tracking equipment to measure visual fixation duration in milliseconds (ms) RESULTS: Participants visually fixated longer on the health warning area than on the tobacco branding area (p<0.05). Mean fixation duration on the health warning area was significantly longer at the top or middle positions compared to the bottom, by 28% (mean difference=340 ms, p=0.006) and by 30% (mean difference=368 ms, p=0.002), respectively. By contrast, mean fixation duration on the branding area was longer with the warning at the bottom compared to top or middle positions by 25% and 33%, with mean differences of 157 ms (p=0.100) and 212 ms (p=0.026), respectively. No significant difference in fixation time was observed between the top and middle positions (p>0.05) CONCLUSIONS: The duration of visual fixation on GHWLs was longer when they were displayed at the top and middle, rather than at the bottom. Therefore, GHWLs should be positioned from the top to the middle of the tobacco package. European Publishing on behalf of the International Society for the Prevention of Tobacco Induced Diseases (ISPTID) 2018-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6659495/ /pubmed/31516438 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tid/94327 Text en © 2018 Hwang J https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Hwang, Ji-eun
Yang, Yu-seon
Oh, Yu-mi
Lee, Seon-young
Lee, Joung-eun
Cho, Sung-il
Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach
title Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach
title_full Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach
title_fullStr Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach
title_full_unstemmed Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach
title_short Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach
title_sort differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: an eye-tracking approach
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31516438
http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tid/94327
work_keys_str_mv AT hwangjieun differencesinvisualfixationdurationaccordingtothepositionofgraphichealthwarninglabelsaneyetrackingapproach
AT yangyuseon differencesinvisualfixationdurationaccordingtothepositionofgraphichealthwarninglabelsaneyetrackingapproach
AT ohyumi differencesinvisualfixationdurationaccordingtothepositionofgraphichealthwarninglabelsaneyetrackingapproach
AT leeseonyoung differencesinvisualfixationdurationaccordingtothepositionofgraphichealthwarninglabelsaneyetrackingapproach
AT leejoungeun differencesinvisualfixationdurationaccordingtothepositionofgraphichealthwarninglabelsaneyetrackingapproach
AT chosungil differencesinvisualfixationdurationaccordingtothepositionofgraphichealthwarninglabelsaneyetrackingapproach