MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067291342 · doi:10.1109/bsc.2008.4563283

Using infrared illumination to improve eye & face tracking in low quality video images

2008· article· en· W2067291342 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Youmaran, Andy Adler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBitTorrent trackerPupilEye trackingFace (sociological concept)Tracking (education)Image qualityThresholdingFacial recognition systemRotation (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel eye and face tracking algorithm using active infrared (IR) illumination. Most eye trackers based on active IR illumination require bright pupil images to successfully detect eyes in image sequences. However, due to factors such as eye closure, head rotation, variation in illumination and occlusion, most trackers tend to fail in these situations where pupil shows weak reflections. Our proposed method overcomes these limitations by making use of the dark-bright pupil difference images as well as using adaptive thresholding techniques. The core computational module of the algorithm is based on the Kalman filter and adaptive template matching to find and update the most probable eye position in the current frame. Our eye tracker can robustly detect faces and track eyes in a sequence of images under variable lighting conditions and face orientations. Experiments show good performance in challenging image sequences with low quality and occluded images with the subject showing considerable head movements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207