Eye tracking evaluation of visual analytics
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 application of eye tracking for the evaluation of humans’ viewing behavior is a common approach in psychological research. So far, the use of this technique for the evaluation of visual analytics and visualization is less prominent. We investigate recent scientific publications from the main visualization and visual analytics conferences and journals, as well as related research fields that include an evaluation by eye tracking. Furthermore, we provide an overview of evaluation goals that can be achieved by eye tracking and state-of-the-art analysis techniques for eye tracking data. Ideally, visual analytics leads to a mixed-initiative cognitive system where the mechanism of distribution is the interaction of the user with the visualization environment. Therefore, we also include a discussion of cognitive approaches and models to include the user in the evaluation process. Based on our review of the current use of eye tracking evaluation in our field and the cognitive theory, we propose directions for future research on evaluation methodology, leading to the grand challenge of developing an evaluation approach to the mixed-initiative cognitive system of visual analytics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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