MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158363907 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2005.863952

General Theory of Remote Gaze Estimation Using the Pupil Center and Corneal Reflections

2006· article· en· W2158363907 on OpenAlexaff
Elias D. Guestrin, Moshe Eizenman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPupilComputer visionGazeCalibrationComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePoint sourceOpticsPoint (geometry)Eye trackingMathematicsPhysicsGeometryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a general theory for the remote estimation of the point-of-gaze (POG) from the coordinates of the centers of the pupil and corneal reflections. Corneal reflections are produced by light sources that illuminate the eye and the centers of the pupil and corneal reflections are estimated in video images from one or more cameras. The general theory covers the full range of possible system configurations. Using one camera and one light source, the POG can be estimated only if the head is completely stationary. Using one camera and multiple light sources, the POG can be estimated with free head movements, following the completion of a multiple-point calibration procedure. When multiple cameras and multiple light sources are used, the POG can be estimated following a simple one-point calibration procedure. Experimental and simulation results suggest that the main sources of gaze estimation errors are the discrepancy between the shape of real corneas and the spherical corneal shape assumed in the general theory, and the noise in the estimation of the centers of the pupil and corneal reflections. A detailed example of a system that uses the general theory to estimate the POG on a computer screen is presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations686
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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