Encounter Differential - Attention Observation Tool

Dorian Vale

← Research Tools and Experiments · Research

Working prototype · Encounter Differential 2.0

A research instrument for museums, galleries and curators. Design a protocol, compose 2–8 artworks, mark image regions, record a clear or magnifying looking glass, preserve a first account, compare participants and export inspectable evidence.

Developed by Dorian Vale; maintained by Museum of One. Documentation revised 21 October 2026.

Evidence status: software checks exercise recorded-event calculations. No participant findings or validated measure of attention, preference or aesthetic value are reported here.

This public page explains the working prototype and how to use it. Screenshots show the actual interface with entirely constructed demonstration records. Research takes place in the separately run local application.

Three artworks in a demonstration encounter with a magnifying looking glass.
The looking glass is a recorded viewing condition. Its pointer-centre trace is not eye tracking. Select the image to inspect it at full size.

New in the working prototype · 21 October 2026

From a research design to a study you can run.

Two built-in templates now connect the published study materials to the local application. Start with a complete design, adapt it to your question, rehearse the procedure and retain the decisions behind the protocol.

01 / Demonstration · template 1.0.0

Clear glass and magnification
3 works2 trials per person60 active seconds

Rehearse a within-person comparison with counterbalanced order, bundled artworks and an example region. Opens in practice mode.

02 / Museum pilot · draft template 0.1.0

Compare introductory framing
24 adults proposed1 trial per personFixed works and positions
Each person receives one framing condition ↓

Prepare a feasibility comparison with balanced blocks of four. The draft still needs a host, local review, defined regions and a justified recruitment plan.

Design diagrams explain the implemented allocation procedure. They show no participant results. A local protocol lock records the design; it does not provide ethics approval or external preregistration.

  1. 01 / CHOOSEField studies → Use a study template.
  2. 02 / ADAPTReview the question, works, regions and intended use.
  3. 03 / RECORDComplete readiness notes; save the draft and lock its version.
  4. 04 / RUNEnter a participant code and allocation row; run the assigned trial.

From practice to inspectable evidence

Rehearse without mixing in participant results.
Saved practice encounter

Interaction record + first account + frozen protocol

Current evidence export

practice = true
analysis_included = false

Actual field values from the constructed documentation rehearsal in the current application’s tables/trials.csv.
FieldExported value
participantPRACTICE-DOCS-01
practicetrue
analysis_includedfalse
completioncompleted

The template source, version, intended use and completed readiness review are retained in the frozen protocol and evidence. Practice status also survives recovery and linked variations.

How existing studies and the public download are preserved

Templates create new drafts and identifiers. They do not install sample trials into your notebook or replace saved studies and locked protocol versions. The setup offers a way to restore the previous unsaved draft.

The downloadable demonstration study remains its original frozen 1.0.0 package. The practice fields illustrated above belong to current application exports; the older published ZIP has not been silently rebuilt.

Template questions and troubleshooting → Request the repository or tool →

For museums, galleries and curators

Give curatorial judgement an evidence trail.

For museums, galleries and curators who need to explain why a display, sequence or label was chosen and preserve the evidence behind that decision.

Every exhibition makes choices about what visitors encounter. If a decision is important enough to shape that encounter, it is important enough to leave a research record.

Museums and galleries

Bring a documented pilot into exhibition development, interpretation review and institutional research. Retain the alternatives, procedure and evidence alongside the eventual decision.

Curators and exhibition designers

Compare an arrangement, sequence or framing before committing to it. Make the question explicit, inspect what changed, and keep your judgement answerable to the record.

Learning, interpretation and visitor-research teams

Collect first accounts before showing an analysis, compare declared conditions, and retain observations, disagreements and exclusions for qualitative or mixed-method work.

Bring a real curatorial question.

Start with one decision your team is already discussing. These are proposed museum uses, illustrated with the working interface and constructed demonstration records.

Actual first-account writing screen before the analysis is revealed, with a scripted demonstration account.

Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration

Examine a label or curatorial framing

What changes when the same works are introduced differently?

A traceable comparison to bring into an interpretation review, with the texts, accounts and uncertainty retained.

How a museum team can use it

Retain two exact introductory texts as separate protocol conditions. Keep the works and presentation settings fixed. Collect first accounts before revealing the trace, then compare recorded interaction and code the written accounts.

When prior knowledge would defeat identity withholding, use a justified design with fresh participant groups. The app does not undo exposure to a label or automatically establish comprehension.

Directional transition network with a selected artwork node and recorded outgoing connections.

Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration

Test a pairing or display order

What does a different arrangement make available for comparison?

An inspectable basis for discussing a proposed pairing or sequence, including accounts that resist the curatorial premise.

How a museum team can use it

Keep the same artworks and use a linked reverse or rotation, or define the alternatives in a locked protocol. Review transitions, returns and first accounts by stable artwork identifier.

This is a digital comparison. Confirm decisions in the physical display; the tool does not reproduce gallery distance, lighting or visitor movement.

Actual linked-condition comparison showing earlier and current shares by stable artwork identity.

Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration

Develop a digital exhibition sequence

How does presenting works together differ from presenting them one at a time?

A documented pilot for a digital exhibition, collection presentation or facilitated looking session.

How a museum team can use it

Compare simultaneous and sequential conditions with declared durations, instructions and order. Inspect how presentation, selected time and written accounts differ; retain missing or interrupted trials.

Presentation and selection are separate measurements. A condition difference is descriptive until the study design supports a stronger inference.

A named polygon region drawn over the cypress grouping in Wheat Field with Cypresses.

Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration

Study the role of detail and magnification

Does a looking glass change recorded exploration and description?

A reproducible record for discussing detail access and close-looking exercises, with region definitions retained.

How a museum team can use it

Name image regions before collection. Compare clear and magnifying conditions using the same works, display and instructions. Review regional pointer dwell, entries and accounts alongside the lens settings.

Region membership follows the pointer centre. It is not eye tracking, and the lens itself changes the encounter.

Protocol designer showing a locked demonstration design, condition controls and allocation fields.

Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration

Document a facilitated looking session

What do participants describe before the analysis invites an explanation?

Material for staff reflection, teaching and qualitative evaluation that preserves what was said at each stage.

How a museum team can use it

Retain an exact facilitation prompt, collect the first account, then keep later trace-assisted reflection separate. Use distinct coder codes when reviewing observation, self-report, inference and counterevidence.

Define an appropriate independent rubric if the question concerns learning or comprehension. The software does not generate a learning score or resolve coding disagreements.

Research report with region measurements and an evidence-linked demonstration annotation.

Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration

Keep a curatorial decision record

Can another colleague inspect the evidence and the reach of the claim?

A research package a team can revisit, scrutinise and carry into a later display review.

How a museum team can use it

Link each claim to a work, region, interval, account or external source. State uncertainty and the reason for exclusions. Export the frozen protocol, records, annotations, images, tables and verification material.

The researcher writes and justifies the conclusion. File checks and retained revisions make scrutiny possible; they do not certify the curatorial judgement.

From a question to a curatorial review.

  1. Choose one decision

    Start with a real exhibition question: a framing, pairing, sequence or use of detail. Define the evidence that would inform it and the decision that remains a matter of judgement.

  2. Rehearse and lock the comparison

    Check the images, instructions, regions, input method and exports. Declare recruitment, allocation, exclusions and analysis before collection; then lock the version you intend to run.

  3. Run a consented pilot

    Use pseudonymous codes and the same declared procedure. Preserve first accounts, early stops and disagreements. Choose a justified recruitment size; the software supplies no universal sample size.

  4. Return to the curatorial meeting

    Set traces beside accounts and inspect the claim–evidence ledger. Record what the pilot supports, what remains uncertain, and what needs checking in the gallery. Keep the evidence package and recovery backup.

Use it as a documented digital pilot. The current working prototype supports facilitated comparative studies with images. Pair it with appropriate recruitment, consent and an analysis plan, and check the transfer of any conclusion to a physical exhibition. Pointer interaction is not gaze, preference or proof of understanding.

Research is part of the museum role described in ICOM’s museum definition. Encounter Differential offers one practical way to make the investigation of a curatorial choice explicit and inspectable.

Encounter Differential / Working prototype / Visual tour

See the research workflow.

Fifteen views of study design, recorded encounters, analysis and exported evidence. Select any image to inspect it at full size.

Actual interface screenshots and three readable previews generated from an actual export. All records are constructed demonstrations; no participant findings are shown.

01 / 3 views

Design the situation

Choose the works, draw the regions and retain an exact protocol.

Demonstration study setup with three public-domain artworks and explicit presentation order.
Actual application screen

Compose the field

Artwork selection and conditions. Demonstration only; no participant record.

View full image →
A named polygon region drawn over the cypress grouping in Wheat Field with Cypresses.
Actual application screen

Define image regions

Regions of interest use image coordinates. This draft polygon is an illustration, not an observed attention region.

View full image →
Protocol designer showing a locked demonstration design, condition controls and allocation fields.
Actual application screen

Lock the protocol

A locked demonstration protocol with clear and magnifying conditions. The local fingerprint is an audit aid, not external preregistration.

View full image →

02 / 3 views

Record the encounter

A looking glass, a first account and the conditions of acquisition.

Three artworks in a demonstration encounter with a magnifying looking glass.
Actual application screen

Look through the glass

The looking glass is a recorded viewing condition. Its pointer-centre trace is not eye tracking.

View full image →
Actual first-account writing screen before the analysis is revealed, with a scripted demonstration account.
Actual application screen

Preserve the first account

Write before seeing the trace. This scripted rehearsal shows the first-account gate, not a participant response.

View full image →
Acquisition manifest showing software versions, image hashes, viewport, sampling and geometry.
Actual application screen

Inspect the acquisition manifest

The acquisition manifest from a scripted rehearsal retains environment, source-image checksums and display geometry for inspection.

View full image →

03 / 6 views

Inspect and compare the evidence

Read patterns alongside accounts, uncertainty and declared conditions.

Pointer paths, regional dwell maps, replay controls and transition tables over three artworks.
Actual application screen

Replay paths and regional maps

Trace replay, normalized pointer paths, cumulative regional maps and return intervals. Constructed interaction data; no gaze or intention is measured.

View full image →
Actual selection-time chart from a constructed three-artwork encounter.
Actual application screen

Inspect selection patterns

Per-work selection shares and recorded duration from constructed traces. Assigned time is the denominator in this chart; selection is not gaze.

View full image →
Directional transition network with a selected artwork node and recorded outgoing connections.
Actual application screen

Follow transitions between works

A network of recorded transitions between artworks. Arrows and weights describe selections, not artistic influence or psychological attraction.

View full image →
Research report with region measurements and an evidence-linked demonstration annotation.
Actual application screen

Link claims to evidence

Constructed trace and annotation used only to show the interface. These are not participant findings.

View full image →
Actual linked-condition comparison showing earlier and current shares by stable artwork identity.
Actual application screen

Compare a linked encounter

Linked-condition comparison from constructed records. Percentage-point differences are descriptive; changes do not establish a causal effect or preference.

View full image →
Participant analysis showing illustrative paired-condition comparisons from constructed demonstration records.
Actual application screen

Compare participants

Entirely constructed demonstration data. Counts, means and differences illustrate the interface; they are not research results.

View full image →

04 / 3 views

Take the evidence with you

Actual exported files, readable tables and independent verification.

Readable preview of the actual demonstration evidence ZIP, file structure and source-image hash checks.
Actual export / readable preview

Open the evidence package

Readable preview generated from an actual demonstration ZIP. Shows retained files and source-image checks; this preview is not an app screen.

View full image →
Actual exported trial and region CSV values displayed as readable tables.
Actual export / readable preview

Analyse the exported tables

Actual CSV projections from the constructed demonstration export. The readable preview retains column names and millisecond units.

View full image →
Actual successful independent Python verification output and an exported data-dictionary excerpt.
Actual export / readable preview

Verify the retained evidence

Actual verifier output and dictionary excerpt from the demonstration evidence package. File integrity and calculation checks are separate from empirical validity.

View full image →

What it does and what it can be used for

  • Built-in study templates: an editable demonstration comparison and museum feasibility pilot, with fresh identifiers, practice or research purpose, documented readiness review and one-condition-per-person pilot assignment.
  • Recorded practice: save and export rehearsals while keeping them outside participant cohorts; current trial tables explicitly retain practice status.
  • Protocol designer: versioned questions, conditions, instructions, allocation plans, stopping rules, exclusions and local design fingerprints.
  • Regions of interest: named image-coordinate polygons, pointer-centre dwell, entries, returns and lens-condition dwell.
  • Looking glass: transparent or magnifying viewing conditions retained with the interaction record; simultaneous and sequential presentations.
  • First accounts and evidence: description before analysis is revealed, then a claim–evidence ledger separating observation, self-report, inference and counterevidence.
  • Participant comparisons: exact-protocol cohorts, participant-level condition summaries, paired descriptive differences and explicit exclusions.
  • Preservation and export: a local notebook, revisions, recovery, acquisition manifests, evidence ZIPs with a dictionary and independent recomputation script, plus separate full-database backups.

Possible research uses include framing and label comparisons, magnification and display-condition pilots, sequence and adjacency experiments, close-description teaching, and qualitative coding of first accounts. Each use needs its own defensible design. The tool records interaction and accounts of an encounter; it does not decide what an artwork means or rate a viewer’s perception.

Post-Interpretive Criticism and aesthetics

The procedure makes the conditions of an encounter available for scrutiny and preserves a description before the trace invites explanation. For PIC, the useful distinction is between observable interaction, the participant’s account, the researcher’s inference and what remains unresolved. An unexpected or resistant account should remain evidence rather than be forced into a preferred interpretation. Withheld labels, the cursor and the lens also shape the encounter and belong in the analysis.

Worked study: Clear glass and magnification

Question: How does a 2× looking glass change recorded exploration and the participant’s description, compared with a clear 1× glass?

This is a design rehearsal, not an empirical finding. The four allocation rows illustrate counterbalancing and do not prescribe a sample size.

Hold the works, framing, input method and instructions constant.
ConditionPresentationLabelsGlassActive time
Clear glassTogether in one fieldWithheld1×60 seconds
Magnifying glassTogether in one fieldWithheld2×60 seconds

Common instruction: Move the pointer naturally over the works. You may pause or stop at any time. Afterwards, describe what appeared before looking at the recorded trace.

Analysis plan: Exploratory within-participant comparison. Average repeated trials within participant and condition first. Compare per-work selected share of active time, paired differences, region pointer dwell and first accounts. Report missing, interrupted, early-stop and excluded trials, order, familiarity and lens reactivity. Do not infer gaze or aesthetic preference.

Stopping rule: 60 active seconds per condition. Participants may stop earlier or withdraw. Retain early exits and interrupted records; exclude rehearsal records with a stated reason. Declare recruitment size, eligibility and any further exclusions before collection.

Seed: lens-pilot-01. Allocation: Rotated and reversed counterbalancing. One repeat per condition.

Keep one participant’s code and allocation row across their conditions.
Illustrative codeAllocation rowPlanned condition order
P0010Clear → Magnifying
P0021Magnifying → Clear
P0032Magnifying → Clear
P0043Clear → Magnifying

How to run the study

Inside the application, select How to use on the opening screen or Study guide & FAQ in setup. Opening the guide preserves the current setup.

  1. Define the question and evidence
  2. Compose the artworks and conditions
  3. Mark regions before collecting data
  4. Design and lock the protocol
  5. Assign and run participant trials
  6. Inspect the trace and document claims
  7. Compare participants and conditions
  8. Export the evidence and preserve the notebook

1. Define the question and evidence

Choose a question the instrument can actually address.

Read the procedure and research checks

Use Field studies for the full research workflow, even when you need only two artworks. The simpler paired encounter remains available as a separate, shorter flow.

The worked design below compares a clear 1× looking glass with a 2× magnifying glass. It concerns recorded interaction and accounts of an encounter. It cannot establish what someone saw, felt, preferred or understood.

Declare the intended unit of analysis, recruitment and sample-size rationale, repeated measures, exclusions, stopping rule and handling of missing data before collecting observations. A software default is not a power calculation. The four-row schedule is an allocation illustration, not a recommended or validated sample size.

Explain the procedure and intended data use to participants, obtain appropriate consent, choose pseudonymous codes, and keep any identity-to-code key outside this notebook. Decide who may see raw paths, writing and exports, and how long they will be retained.

Before continuing:

  • One specific question
  • A stated primary outcome and exploratory outcomes
  • Participant and data-handling plan
  • Declared sampling and exclusion rationale

2. Compose the artworks and conditions

Field studies → Create a field study.

See the interface example ↑

Read the procedure and research checks

Choose 2–8 distinct artworks. Use the bundled collection or images you are entitled to use. Record titles, artists, dates and source information, then choose presentation order. Uploaded images stay local and are not recompressed.

For the worked design, keep the same works, simultaneous presentation, identity-label setting, instruction and contextual framing in both conditions. Only the starting magnification changes from 1× to 2×. Record screen, room, lighting, sound and relevant prior familiarity as far as practicable.

Selecting or presenting a work is not a measure of gaze. Navigation in sequential mode records presentation; pointer or deliberate touch/keyboard selection records selected time. Keep input methods consistent when the question requires it.

Before continuing:

  • Works and rights checked
  • Identity and presentation settings reviewed
  • Exact instructions and framing retained
  • Device, input method and surrounding conditions recorded

3. Mark regions before collecting data

Expand Protocol designer & regions of interest; use the region editor first.

See the interface example ↑

Read the procedure and research checks

Choose the artwork in the region editor. Click at least three vertices around a meaningful part of the image, then enter a descriptive name and select Save region. Use Undo vertex or Clear drawing before saving. Crossed or degenerate polygons are rejected.

Keyboard users can focus the polygon editor, move the crosshair with arrow keys and press Enter to add a vertex. Name regions descriptively, such as “cypress grouping” or “open sky”, rather than naming an assumed psychological effect.

Coordinates refer to the image, not a particular screen size. Boundary points count as inside. Each polygon is scored independently: overlapping regions accrue overlapping time, so their totals must not be added as though they partition the image.

Region dwell follows the last observed pointer centre until the next observed position, leave, pause or end. Entries count transitions into a region; returns are entries after the first. Lens dwell and magnified dwell concern the pointer centre, not every pixel under the lens. Touch and keyboard selection do not invent a within-image pointer position.

Region definitions are frozen with acquisition. Do not redraw them after seeing results and describe that analysis as prespecified. Amend the protocol for future trials. Legacy records without these measurements remain explicitly incomplete.

Before continuing:

  • Regions named and saved on each relevant work
  • Overlaps intentional and disclosed
  • Definitions settled before looking at results

4. Design and lock the protocol

Complete the versioned protocol designer beneath the region editor.

See the interface example ↑

Read the procedure and research checks

Enter a protocol title, research question, seed, prespecified analysis plan, stopping/exclusion rules, recruitment notes and common participant instruction. Add each condition and its exact framing, instruction, presentation, identity visibility, cursor, magnification and active-time duration.

For the worked design, create Clear glass at 1× and Magnifying glass at 2×, both for 60 active seconds. Use one repeat per condition for the simplest rehearsal. Treat further repetitions as repeated observations of the same participant, not additional independent people.

Choose Fixed order, Seeded shuffle per allocation row, or Rotated and reversed counterbalancing. The latter rotates condition order and artwork position across rows and reverses condition order on alternate cycles; it is not a full Latin-square design. Inspect the planned order. In this two-condition example, artwork positions stay the same within a participant’s pair of conditions but can rotate across allocation rows.

Save protocol draft while developing the design. Lock protocol captures the current artworks and regions, versions the definition and records its SHA-256 fingerprint. Review the locked work/region counts and planned order before launch. Create amended version for any subsequent change; never silently combine versions in one comparison.

A local lock is an audit aid, not an external preregistration or independently certified timestamp. If the project needs preregistration, register the design through the appropriate separate process before collecting its data.

Before continuing:

  • Both conditions reviewed
  • Seed and allocation recorded
  • Analysis and stopping rules stated
  • Current artwork and region counts correct
  • Locked version and fingerprint retained

5. Assign and run participant trials

Use one stable participant code and a deliberate allocation row.

See the interface example ↑

Read the procedure and research checks

Enter P001 and allocation row 0, inspect the trial list, and select Run assigned trial. Use P002 with row 1 for the next participant, following your declared allocation plan. A participant’s code must stay the same across their conditions and repetitions. The app cannot establish who used a code.

Begin with a rehearsal. Use a clearly marked rehearsal code and record an explicit exclusion decision afterwards; do not count it as participant evidence. Check image loading, pointer/lens behaviour, timing, regions, instructions, first-account collection and exports before recruiting.

The participant reads the exact framing and instructions before Begin study encounter. In protocol mode, lens controls stay fixed and live counters are withheld. Pause and stop remain available. Images are withheld while paused; loss of focus or backgrounding pauses measurement and requires explicit resume.

Fixed-duration trials end at the active-time target; early manual stopping is recorded separately. Actual recorded duration remains in the log. Five-second checkpoints support interrupted-session recovery, which preserves the last committed trace and marks the encounter interrupted. The missing final interval is not reconstructed.

After each encounter, save the first descriptive account before opening analysis or revealing withheld identities. An empty account is also a recorded choice. The first account stays separate from later trace-assisted reflection. Continue to next assigned trial from the report. For a new participant, reopen the saved locked protocol and assign the next code/row; do not treat changing a code as an automatic new recruitment record.

Before continuing:

  • Code and allocation row correct
  • Rehearsal excluded with a reason
  • First account precedes analysis
  • Early stops and interruptions retained
  • Every planned trial accounted for

6. Inspect the trace and document claims

Set recorded events beside the participant’s account.

See the interface example ↑

Read the procedure and research checks

Explore per-work selected share, visits, returns, pointer paths, replay, regional maps, transitions and condition comparisons. Active time includes unassigned time; selected share is selected work time divided by total active time. Different exposure durations or input methods can change the comparison.

Inspect the region table for dwell, entries/returns, first entry and lens/magnified dwell. Inspect the measurement manifest for software/calculation versions, source-image checksums, viewport, actual rendered image geometry, sampling and interruptions. Missing acquisition information in legacy records has not been reconstructed.

Use the claim–evidence ledger to distinguish observation, self-report, inference and counterevidence. Give each entry a coder code, an evidence reference, uncertainty and, when relevant, an artwork, region and active-time interval. An account that disagrees with the trace is not automatically an error to correct.

For example, an observation may say “the pointer centre remained inside the cypress region for this interval”. “The participant preferred the tree” is an inference that this trace cannot establish. A participant’s own statement remains self-report, not a measured preference score.

Use Revise annotation when an entry changes. Earlier revisions remain inspectable. Under Analysis inclusion decision, state and save a reason for any exclusion; the original recording stays retained. Independent coders should use distinct codes and retain disagreements before any separate adjudication.

Before continuing:

  • Claim types distinguishable
  • Evidence and uncertainty explicit
  • Exclusions have reasons
  • First account preserved alongside later reflection

7. Compare participants and conditions

Field studies → Participant analysis.

See the interface example ↑

Read the procedure and research checks

Select one exact locked protocol version/hash. Filter by participant code or input method only when that matches the declared analysis. The input filter includes sessions that used that method; mixed-input sessions may still be present.

Completed trials with participant codes contribute by default; interrupted, early-stop and explicitly excluded records do not. Review included/excluded counts and repeated-assignment flags. Retakes remain visible rather than being silently discarded; inspect them and record any exclusion decision.

Repeated trials are averaged within participant and condition before the group descriptive mean is calculated. Each per-work row reports its own participant and trial counts, mean selected share and observed participant range. Zero-active-time trials cannot supply a selected-share value.

Within-participant differences include only people with both compared conditions. The displayed difference is second condition minus first in percentage points of selected share. It is descriptive and unadjusted for order, familiarity and other covariates; the app does not produce a significance test or a causal verdict.

The group panel summarizes per-work selected share. Inspect ROI dwell and written accounts in the individual records and exported tables, or use a separately specified external analysis. The interface does not automatically calculate cohort ROI effects, coder agreement, statistical power or eye-tracking validity.

Before continuing:

  • One exact protocol version
  • Independent participants counted correctly
  • Missing conditions and repeated assignments reviewed
  • Order, familiarity, input and lens reactivity reported
  • Descriptive findings kept separate from causal claims

8. Export the evidence and preserve the notebook

Use a research ZIP for analysis and a full database backup for recovery.

Read the procedure and research checks

In a study report, choose Export reproducible ZIP. In Participant analysis, Export selected trials & tidy tables exports the current selection. The bundle contains authoritative study JSON, frozen protocol definitions, region vertices, first accounts, later reflections, annotations, manifests, source images when retrievable, CSV tables, a data dictionary, checksums and a Python verification script.

Extract the ZIP into a folder. Run “python3 verify-and-recompute.py” from a terminal using that folder’s script. It checks bundled file hashes and recomputes complete work dwell and polygon dwell from the retained trace. A truncated legacy trace is reported rather than treated as a complete recomputation. This verifies selected software calculations, not scientific validity.

Review assets.json: exported images are compared with acquisition hashes when available. A later remote image can differ or become unavailable. Do not describe an unavailable or changed image as the verified original stimulus. CSV text that could execute as a spreadsheet formula is escaped; JSON preserves the exact text.

Use Database & recovery → Back up full database separately. That backup includes revisions, original-storage snapshots, images, removed records, conflicts and recovery drafts. A research ZIP is an analytical package, not the full database recovery archive.

IndexedDB commits locally; the SQLite mirror is a second local copy when connected. Check pending writes and mirror status. Browser and desktop origins have separate notebooks. Use an inspected full backup to transfer data. Keep a backup outside the working device, review sharing and rights, and do not publish raw participant writing or identifiers by accident.

Before continuing:

  • Correct records and filters exported
  • Dictionary and manifests retained
  • Checksums and recomputation reviewed
  • Changed/unavailable images disclosed
  • Full database backup stored separately
  • Sharing reviewed before release

FAQ and troubleshooting

How do I start from a demonstration or museum pilot template?

Open Field studies → Use a study template, then choose a template. It opens a separate draft with a new identifier; no demonstration trials are imported. Review the works and regions, intended use and readiness notes. Save the draft, lock it, then enter a participant code and allocation row to run the assigned trial. Saved protocols remain available under Saved protocol. Restore previous setup returns to the earlier unsaved setup while this view stays open.

How do practice and participant research differ?

The demonstration template starts in Practice only. Your own practice encounters are saved and exportable, but excluded from participant cohorts, including recovery checkpoints and linked variations. They are different from the synthetic analysis-lab example. To adapt a template for participant research, choose that intended use and complete every readiness item with notes before locking. That local review is not ethics approval or external preregistration.

Why does the museum pilot assign only one framing to a person?

The draft proposes parallel arms. Its seeded schedule assigns one condition per allocation row, balanced in blocks of four for two conditions, and keeps work positions fixed. Use one unique participant code and row per person, retain the seed and concealed allocation under a custodian, and apply the proposed 24-person stopping rule yourself. The demonstration instead assigns both lens conditions to each person.

What is the tool’s current status, and how can I experiment with it?

Encounter Differential is a working prototype maintained by Museum of One. Individuals and institutions interested in experimenting with it can contact research@museumofone.art to request the GitHub repository or a copy of the tool. Its public website provides documentation and screenshots. Software checks do not establish empirical validity.

Is the looking glass eye tracking?

No. It records pointer-centre position and interface interaction. A pointer can be parked while someone looks elsewhere. Gaze claims require a separately calibrated method and a validation study for the actual task.

Can I run a research protocol with only two artworks?

Yes. Use Field studies and remove works until two remain. The shorter paired-encounter flow has different controls; use the field-study workflow for locked protocols, polygon regions, first accounts and participant comparisons.

Can I change artworks, regions or settings after locking?

Create an amended protocol version for future trials. The locked design and acquired recording remain unchanged. Reflections, evidence annotations and inclusion decisions create revisions without changing the raw recording.

What does selected share mean?

Selected work time divided by active session time, including unassigned active time. It is a percentage of recorded interaction time, not a probability of preference or a percentage of time spent looking.

Why do region totals exceed work time?

Overlapping polygons are scored independently. Overlapping time can belong to more than one region. Region sums are not a partition unless the regions were designed to be mutually exclusive.

Does a larger lens measure its whole footprint?

No. Region membership uses the pointer centre. Lens dwell and magnified dwell record the viewing condition at that point; they do not measure everything visible through the circular lens.

How do I resume another day?

Reopen the saved locked protocol, keep the same participant code and allocation row for that participant, and select the intended next trial from the planned list. Check existing records first to avoid accidental duplicate assignments. Interrupted checkpoints recover the last committed trace; they do not resume a supposedly continuous encounter.

Why is a record absent from Participant analysis?

Check the exact protocol version/hash, code and input filters, completion status and saved inclusion decision. Legacy/ad hoc records without a locked protocol remain in the notebook but do not join this protocol comparison. Missing paired conditions exclude that person from that particular paired difference.

Are pauses or early stops discarded?

No. Paused time remains separate from active time. Early-stop and interrupted records remain retained and are excluded from the default completed-trial cohort. State how such records will be handled before collecting data.

Are local protocol locks equivalent to preregistration?

No. They preserve the local version and fingerprint. External registration, independent timing evidence and a declared analysis process are separate research practices.

Which export should I keep?

Keep both: a reproducible ZIP for the selected analytical evidence, and a full database backup for the notebook, revisions and recovery records. A CSV alone does not preserve the whole situation.

Do the validation checks validate PIC or a measure of attention?

No. The Validation register runs scripted software reference checks and outlines empirical work still needed: timing/device replication, lens reactivity, calibrated-gaze comparisons where relevant, coding reliability and test–retest/usability. No human validation result is supplied by a passing benchmark.

Does this website run the app or collect study material?

No. The public Museum of One page is documentation with static demonstration screenshots. It contains no app embed, participant upload form, executable study, or downloadable app installer. Study work remains in the separately run local application.

About the images and export examples

The fifteen-image visual tour shows the actual interface in an isolated documentation notebook, alongside readable previews derived from its exported files. The traces, participant codes, accounts and comparisons were constructed for explanation. They contain no private study records and report no participant findings. Artworks shown are from the public-domain Metropolitan Museum of Art Open Access collection, with source records retained in the tool.

The evidence-package example contains eight completed demonstration trials and one excluded scripted rehearsal. Cohort summaries use the eight completed trials. Export previews retain the actual file names, values and independent verification output; they are labelled as readable previews rather than application screens.

Scope and limits

A pointer trace is not gaze. Selected time is not preference. Region definitions and lens settings influence what is measured. Overlapping regions cannot be summed as a partition. Comparisons are descriptive and do not provide inferential tests, causal estimates or automatic coder agreement. Local protocol locking is not external preregistration. The Validation register distinguishes software reference checks from empirical studies still needed.

Use pseudonyms, appropriate consent, an explicit sampling rationale and a declared analysis plan. Review writing, stimulus rights and identifiers before sharing an export. Keep full recovery backups separately from evidence packages.

Citation and revision

Vale, Dorian. Encounter Differential - Attention Observation Tool. Museum of One, 2026. Working prototype 2.0; research-tool documentation revised 21 October 2026. https://www.museumofone.art/encounter-differential/

The historical page title and canonical address are retained. The January paired-viewing design now sits alongside the fuller 2–8 artwork field-study workflow. The earlier documentation revision of 17 October 2026 described a protocol; this revision documents implemented prototype functionality, a worked study, FAQ and actual interface screenshots. It announces no participant findings or empirical validation.

Post-Interpretive Method supplies methodological context. Phenomenological methods situates the inquiry. Curatorial Space and Adjacency Mapper address related presentation questions.

← All research tools and experiments · Request research access ↑

Research record and citation

Status: Published web record

Page summary

Working prototype for comparative artwork research: 2–8 works, locked protocols, image regions, a looking glass, participant comparisons and evidence exports. Includes a worked study and FAQ.

Title
Encounter Differential - Attention Observation Tool
Page authorship
Published by
MUSEUM OF ONE
Web publication
Web record updated

Publication history and rights

These dates describe the Museum of One web record. They do not establish the publication date of an earlier work, separate edition or repository deposit.

Rights: Rights follow the notice attached to the individual work or edition. Consult the published text or repository record.

Cite this page

Dorian Vale. Encounter Differential - Attention Observation Tool. 2026. MUSEUM OF ONE. https://www.museumofone.art/encounter-differential/

This page record follows the title, authorship, excerpt and web dates maintained in Ghost. Cite a separately published work using its own edition record.

Related records

Page authorship: .

Museum of One, An Independent Research Institute for Contemporary Aesthetics. Founded in 2025 by Tarique. Dorian Vale is Tarique’s publishing name. Museum of One publishes The Journal of Post-Interpretive Criticism through Museum of One Press and maintains the Museum of One Archival Library.

Contact: research@museumofone.art