MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097493241 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2009.2015955

Improving the Accuracy and Reliability of Remote System-Calibration-Free Eye-Gaze Tracking

2009· article· en· W2097493241 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Hennessey, Peter D. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceCalibrationEye trackingReflection (computer programming)GazeDisplacement (psychology)Distortion (music)OpticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote eye-gaze tracking provides a means for nonintrusive tracking of the point-of-gaze (POG) of a user. For application as a user interface for the disabled, a remote system that is noncontact, reliable, and permits head motion is very desirable. The system-calibration-free pupil-corneal reflection (P-CR) vector technique for POG estimation is a popular method due to its simplicity, however, accuracy has been shown to be degraded with head displacement. Model-based POG-estimation methods were developed, which improve system accuracy during head displacement, however, these methods require complex system calibration in addition to user calibration. In this paper, the use of multiple corneal reflections and point-pattern matching allows for a scaling correction of the P-CR vector for head displacements as well as an improvement in system robustness to corneal reflection distortion, leading to improved POG-estimation accuracy. To demonstrate the improvement in performance, the enhanced multiple corneal reflection P-CR method is compared to the monocular and binocular accuracy of the traditional single corneal reflection P-CR method, and a model-based method of POG estimation for various head displacements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations62
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207