Activity recognition using eye-gaze movements and traditional interactions
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 need for intelligent HCI has been reinforced by the increasing numbers of human-centered applications in our daily life. However, in order to respond adequately, intelligent applications must first interpret users’ actions. Identifying the context in which users’ interactions occur is an important step toward automatic interpretation of behavior. In order to address a part of this context-sensing problem, we propose a generic and application-independent framework for activity recognition of users interacting with a computer interface. Our approach uses Layered Hidden Markov Models (LHMM) and is based on eye-gaze movements along with keyboard and mouse interactions. The main contribution of the proposed framework is the ability to relate users’ interactions to a task model in variant applications and for different monitoring purposes. Experimental results from two user studies show that our activity recognition technique is able to achieve good predictive accuracy with a relatively small amount of training data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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