MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256387306

Development of a low-cost, portable, tablet-based eye tracking system for children with impairments

2015· article· en· W2256387306 on OpenAlexaff
Harshita Karamchandani, Tom Chau, David Hobbs, Leslie Mumford

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Convention on Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye trackingComputer scienceTracking systemComputer visionRobustness (evolution)Eye tracking on the ISSArtificial intelligenceGazeEye movementVideo trackingTracking (education)Human–computer interactionVideo processing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eye tracking technology can enable children with severe speech and motor impairment to communicate. Eye tracking systems for the use of human computer interaction have long been an area of interest in the assistive technology field. However, a number of factors have prevented eye tracking from being an accessible technology, including the invasiveness, robustness, availability, and cost of eye tracking systems. Moreover, a common drawback of some commercial eye tracking systems is that head motion is not typically considered, and many systems are not portable or mobile. This work describes the design and development of an eye tracking system for children with disabilities. The system is an economical alternative to commercially available devices. It does not require any sophisticated hardware, and is tablet-based. It uses raw images from a webcam and relies on distinct features of the eye that can be detected and tracked using image processing functions. The simple eye tracking system can differentiate between 16 different points of gaze enabling the user to have access to 16 options on a 4 by 4 display.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Convention on Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive TechnologySame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207