An application of eyegaze tracking for designing radiologists' workstations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this research is to use eyegaze tracking data to provide insights into designing radiology workstations. We designed a look-alike radiology task with artificial stimuli. The task involved a comparative visual search of two side-by-side images, using two different interaction techniques. We tracked the eyegaze of four radiologists while they performed the task and measured the duration of the fixations on the controls, the left and right images, and on the artificial targets. Response time differences between the two interaction techniques exceeded the differences of fixations on the controls. Fixations on the left-side images are longer than the right-side images, and the search for multifeatured targets occurs in two phases: first a regular scan path search phase for a likely target and then a confirmation phase of several fixations on the target in each side-by-side image. We conclude that eyegaze tracking shows that disruption of visual search leads to cognitive disruption; subjects use the left image as a reference image and multiple saccades between left and right side images are necessary, because of the limitations of the visual working memory.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".