Evaluation of head-free eye tracking as an input device for air traffic control
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
The purpose of this study was to investigate the possibility to integrate a free head motion eye-tracking system as input device in air traffic control (ATC) activity. Sixteen participants used an eye tracker to select targets displayed on a screen as quickly and accurately as possible. We assessed the impact of the presence of visual feedback about gaze position and the method of target selection on selection performance under different difficulty levels induced by variations in target size and target-to-target separation. We tend to consider that the combined use of gaze dwell-time selection and continuous eye-gaze feedback was the best condition as it suits naturally with gaze displacement over the ATC display and free the hands of the controller, despite a small cost in terms of selection speed. In addition, target size had a greater impact on accuracy and selection time than target distance. These findings provide guidelines on possible further implementation of eye tracking in ATC everyday activity. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: We investigated the possibility to integrate a free head motion eye-tracking system as input device in air traffic control (ATC). We found that the combined use of gaze dwell-time selection and continuous eye-gaze feedback allowed the best performance and that target size had a greater impact on performance than target distance.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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