Studying attention to IPCC climate change maps with mobile eye-tracking

17. Schneider B, Nocke T. The Feeling of Red and Blue—A Constructive Critique of Color Mapping in Visual Climate Change Communication. In: Leal Filho W, Manolas E, Azul AM, Azeiteiro UM, McGhie H, editors. Handb. Clim. Change Commun. Vol 2, Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018, p. 289–303. 18. Crameri F, Shephard GE, Heron PJ. The misuse of colour in science communication. Nat Commun 2020; 11:5444. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7 PMID: 33116149 19. Locher P, Smith L, Smith J. Original Paintings versus Slide and Computer Reproductions: A Compari- son of Viewer Responses. Empir Stud Arts 1999; 17:121–9. https://doi.org/10.2190/R1WN-TAF2- 376D-EFUH 20. Brieber D, Leder H, Nadal M. The Experience of Art in Museums: An Attempt to Dissociate the Role of Physical Context and Genuineness. Empir Stud Arts 2015; 33:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0276237415570000 21. Brieber D, Nadal M, Leder H. In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2015; 154:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.004 PMID: 25481660 22. Gru¨ner S, Specker E, Leder H. Effects of Context and Genuineness in the Experience of Art. Empir Stud Arts 2019; 37:138–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418822896 23. Reitsta¨ tter L, Brinkmann H, Santini T, Specker E, Dare Z, Bakondi F, et al. The display makes a differ- ence: A mobile eye tracking study on the perception of art before and after a museum’s rearrangement. J Eye Mov Res 2020; 13. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.2.6 PMID: 33828792

24. Gulhan D, Durant S, Zanker JM. Similarity of gaze patterns across physical and virtual versions of an installation artwork. Sci Rep 2021; 11:18913. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91904-x PMID: 34556675 25. Specker E, Arato´ J, Leder H. How are real artworks and reproductions judged? The role of anchoring in empirical investigations of the genuineness effect. J Exp Soc Psychol 2023; 108:104494. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104494 26. Mauritshuis Museum, Neurensics, Neurofactor. The unconscious emotions that art evokes: Neurosci- ence research into the impact of a museum visit (Final Report). 2024. 27. Iturbide M, Ferna´ ndez J, Gutie´rrez JM, Bedia J, Cimadevilla E, Dı´ez-Sierra J, et al. Repository support- ing the implementation of FAIR principles in the IPCC-WGI Atlas 2021. 28. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (Ipcc). Climate Change 2021 –The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2023. 29. Clayton S, Karazsia BT. Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. J Environ Psychol 2020; 69:101434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434 30. Chen S, Epps J, Ruiz N, Chen F. Eye activity as a measure of human mental effort in HCI. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Intell. User Interfaces, Palo Alto CA USA: ACM; 2011, p. 315–8. 31. Deroy O, Longin L, Bahrami B. Co-perceiving: Bringing the social into perception. WIREs Cogn Sci 2024:e1681. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1681 PMID: 38706396

32. Sˇ asˇinka Č, Stachoň Z, Čeněk J, Sˇ asˇinkova´ A, Popelka S, Ugwitz P, et al. A comparison of the perfor- mance on extrinsic and intrinsic cartographic visualizations through correctness, response time and cognitive processing. PLOS ONE 2021; 16:e0250164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250164 PMID: 33882074 33. Courtney SL, McNeal KS. Seeing is believing: Climate change graph design and user judgments of credibility, usability, and risk. Geosphere 2023; 19:1508–27. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES02517.1 34. Borkin MA, Vo AA, Bylinskii Z, Isola P, Sunkavalli S, Oliva A, et al. What Makes a Visualization Memora- ble? IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2013; 19:2306–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2013.234 PMID: 24051797 35. Herring J, VanDyke MS, Cummins RG, Melton F. Communicating Local Climate Risks Online Through an Interactive Data Visualization. Environ Commun 2017; 11:90–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17524032.2016.1176946 36. Beattie G, Marselle M, McGuire L, Litchfield D. Staying over-optimistic about the future: Uncovering attentional biases to climate change messages. Semiotica 2017; 2017:21–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/ sem-2016-0074 37. Luo Y, Zhao J. Motivated Attention in Climate Change Perception and Action. Front Psychol 2019; 10:1541. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01541 PMID: 31379643 38. Luo Y, Zhao J. Attentional and perceptual biases of climate change. Curr Opin Behav Sci 2021; 42:22– 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.010 PLOS ONE Studying attention to IPCC climate change maps with mobile eye-tracking

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316909 January 10, 2025 16 / 17