Understanding how tacit knowledge embedded in visual materials is accessed and utilized during evaluation tasks remains a key challenge in human–computer interaction and visual expertise research. Although eye-tracking studies have identified systematic differences between experts and novices, findings remain inconsistent, particularly in art-related visual evaluation contexts. This study examines whether tacit aspects of visual evaluation can be inferred from gaze behavior by comparing individuals with and without formal art education. Visual evaluation was assessed using a structured, prompt-based task in which participants inspected artistic images and responded to items targeting specific visual elements. Eye movements were recorded using a screen-based eye-tracking system. Areas of In…

6. Recommendations This study demonstrates that individuals in the art-education group and the non-art group follow different visual evaluation processes, as evidenced by eye-tracking data. The findings indicate that individuals in the art-education group exhibit more systematic attentional processing toward AOIs and sustain attention for longer when evaluating images. Future studies may integrate eye-tracking metrics from individuals in the art-education group and the non-art group with machine learning methods to develop classification models and to examine how visual evaluation strategies evolve across educational levels. Eye-tracking studies can be conducted with groups differing in age and experience to determine how visual materials may be integrated into educational processes. To examine visual learning and cognitive processes, eye-tracking data can be analyzed using machine learning methods to develop classification models. Differences between individuals with and without art education can be investigated more comprehensively to understand better factors shaping artistic perception. Longitudinal analyses can be conducted across different educational levels to evaluate how v…

The Appreciated Gateway must be evaluated by a human keeper.
Does this declaration represent a genuine open research gap?