Inferring Visualization Task Properties, User Performance, and User Cognitive Abilities from Eye Gaze Data
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
Information visualization systems have traditionally followed a one-size-fits-all model, typically ignoring an individual user's needs, abilities, and preferences. However, recent research has indicated that visualization performance could be improved by adapting aspects of the visualization to the individual user. To this end, this article presents research aimed at supporting the design of novel user-adaptive visualization systems. In particular, we discuss results on using information on user eye gaze patterns while interacting with a given visualization to predict properties of the user's visualization task; the user's performance (in terms of predicted task completion time); and the user's individual cognitive abilities, such as perceptual speed, visual working memory, and verbal working memory. We provide a detailed analysis of different eye gaze feature sets, as well as over-time accuracies. We show that these predictions are significantly better than a baseline classifier even during the early stages of visualization usage. These findings are then discussed with a view to designing visualization systems that can adapt to the individual user in real time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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