A New Methodology for Determining Point-of-Gaze in Head-Mounted Eye Tracking Systems
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 ability to determine point-of-gaze with respect to an observed scene provides significant insight into human cognitive processes, since shifts in gaze position are generally guided by shifts in attentional focus. Using a head-mounted eye tracking system, a new methodology based on four or more point correspondences in two views was developed to reconstruct the subject's point-of-gaze. For exact point correspondences, 95% of the reconstruction errors are less than 0.32 degrees when the homography algorithm with distortion compensation is used to determine gaze position. In a typical visual scanning experiment, 95% of the reconstruction errors are less than 0.90 degrees. Analysis of normalization techniques that reduce the sensitivity of the homography algorithm to input errors suggests that the point correspondences should be arranged in a radially symmetric distribution around the area to be scanned. The new methodology was used in a clinical study on visual selective attention and mood disorders; this study showed that depressed subjects spent significantly more time looking at images with dysphoric themes than normal control subjects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it