Eye tracking research and technology: Towards objective measurement of data quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two methods for objectively measuring eye tracking data quality are explored. The first method works by tricking the eye tracker to detect an abrupt change in the gaze position of an artificial eye that in actuality does not move. Such a device, referred to as an artificial saccade generator, is shown to be extremely useful for measuring the temporal accuracy and precision of eye tracking systems and for validating the latency to display change in gaze contingent display paradigms. The second method involves an artificial pupil that is mounted on a computer controlled moving platform. This device is designed to be able to provide the eye tracker with motion sequences that closely resemble biological eye movements. The main advantage of using artificial motion for testing eye tracking data quality is the fact that the spatiotemporal signal is fully specified in a manner independent of the eye tracker that is being evaluated and that nearly identical motion sequence can be reproduced multiple times with great precision. The results of the present study demonstrate that the equipment described has the potential to become an important tool in the comprehensive evaluation of data quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it