Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differences in eye movements while viewing images with various levels of restorativeness

Franěk, Marek, Šefara, Denis, Petružálek, Jan, Cabal, Jiří, Myška, Karel·2018·Journal of Environmental Psychology
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.05.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.05.001

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. van den Berg, 2016, Why viewing nature is more fascinating and restorative than viewing buildings: A closer look at perceived complexity, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 20, 397, 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.011 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Berman, 2014, The perception of naturalness correlates with low-level visual features of environmental scenes, PLoS One, 9, e114572, 10.1371/journal.pone.0114572 · DOI
  3. Berto, 2005, Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Berto, 2008, Do eye movements measured across high and low fascination photographs differ? Addressing Kaplan's fascination hypothesis, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 185, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.004 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Clarke, 2014, Deriving an appropriate baseline for describing fixation behaviour, Vision Research, 102, 41, 10.1016/j.visres.2014.06.016 · DOI
  6. Fintzi, 2014, A bimodal tuning curve for spatial frequency across left and right human orbital frontal cortex during object recognition, Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1311, 10.1093/cercor/bhs419 · DOI
  7. Hartig, 1999, Testing for mood congruent recall with environmentally induced mood, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 353, 10.1006/jevp.1999.0142 · DOI
  8. Herzog, 1997, Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165, 10.1006/jevp.1997.0051 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Joye, 2013, New methods for assessing the fascinating nature of nature experiences, PLoS One, 8, e65332, 10.1371/journal.pone.0065332 · DOI
  10. Joye, 2016, When complex is easy on the mind: Internal repetition of visual information in complex objects is a source of perceptual fluency, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 103
  11. Joye, 2011, Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 10, 261, 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Kardan, 2015, Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom–up processing of the visual features of nature?, Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 471, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00471 · DOI
  13. Karmanov, 2008, Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy, Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 115, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.004 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Korpela, 2002, Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes, Environment and Behavior, 34, 634, 10.1177/0013916502034005004 · DOI
  15. Leder, 2016, How beauty determines gaze! Facial attractiveness and gaze duration in images of real world scenes, I-Perception, 7, 1, 10.1177/2041669516664355 · DOI
  16. Maner, 2003, Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107, 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1107 · DOI · Paper page
  17. McMahan, 2015, The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 507, 10.1080/17439760.2014.994224 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Nadal, 2010, Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 173, 10.2190/EM.28.2.d · DOI
  19. Ouellette, 2005, The monastery as a restorative environment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 175, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.06.001 · DOI
  20. Packer, 2010, Museums as restorative environments, Curator: The Museum Journal, 53, 421, 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2010.00044.x · DOI
  21. Siegle, 2008, Blink before and after you think: Blinks occur prior to and following cognitive load indexed by pupillary responses, Psychophysiology, 45, 679, 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00681.x · DOI · Paper page
  22. Staats, 2016, Urban options for psychological Restoration: Common strategies in everyday situations, PLoS One, 11, e0146213, 10.1371/journal.pone.0146213 · DOI
  23. Stoll, 2015, Overt attention in natural scenes: Objects dominate features, Vision Research, 107, 36, 10.1016/j.visres.2014.11.006 · DOI
  24. Taylor, 2002, Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49, 10.1006/jevp.2001.0241 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Tennessen, 1995, Views to nature: Effects on attention, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77, 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Ulrich, 1991, Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201, 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Valtchanov, 2015, Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 184, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.07.001 · DOI

Cited by

See all 98

Metadata

Authors
Franěk, M., Šefara, D., Petružálek, J., Cabal, J., & Myška, K.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
57
Pages
10-16
ISSN
0272-4944
DOI
10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.05.001
Cited by
98
References
6
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
Student Specific Research (1/2017)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differences in eye movements while viewing images with various levels of restorativeness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.05.001
The paper
Franěk, M., Šefara, D., Petružálek, J., Cabal, J., & Myška, K. (2018). Differences in eye movements while viewing images with various levels of restorativeness. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.05.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.