Perception of eye contact in video teleconsultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During patient consultations by videoconferencing, clinicians often sit as close as 1 m from the videoconferencing units, creating a significant eye gaze angle (i.e. the angle between the eye and the camera, and the eye and the centre of the display). Eye gaze angle may adversely affect the satisfaction with videoconferencing. Four videoconferencing environments were examined: desktop PC, portable telehealth unit, videoconferencing room, and a boardroom equipped with a ceiling-mounted camera and a projection screen. Two still images of each of the three subjects were captured: one at a 7 degrees eye gaze angle and the other at 15 degrees. Each of 53 observers ranked four pairs of images for each of the three subjects. In 87% of cases, the observers perceived better eye contact at an eye gaze angle of 7 degrees than 15 degrees. Also, 92% of observers responded that the difference in the perceived eye contact was important to them as patients. Improved eye contact can be realized by increasing the horizontal distance of participants from the videoconferencing unit.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".