MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893505613 · doi:10.1167/18.10.230

Perception of gaze direction using 3D virtual reality displays. Effect of Sclera and Head Orientation.

2018· article· en· W2893505613 on OpenAlexaff
Diego B. Piza, Hitarth Dalal, Borna Mahmoudian, Rob Nicolson, Julio Martínez-Trujillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGazeOrientation (vector space)PsychologyScleraIllusionPerceptionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceAudiologyComputer scienceMathematicsCognitive psychologyGeometryMedicineOphthalmologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceived gaze direction results from a mechanism that takes into account the orientation of the eyes and the head relative to the observer (Todorovic 2006). Studies using two-dimensional images have shown that head orientation influence perceived gaze direction (Wollaston illusion; see Langton 2000). However, this effect has not been studied using 3D images; it is possible that 3D cues modulate interactions between head and gaze direction. We clarify this issue by using 3D virtual reality displays of digitized faces while manipulating eye and head orientation. We also studied the effect of the white sclera on perceived gaze direction by replacing human eyes by macaque monkey eyes. We used an Oculus rift for stimulus presentation. The stimulus presentation and data collection were conducted using Unreal Engine 4. Within a virtual world, emotionally neutral human heads with human or monkey eyes with 3 head and 7 eye orientations were presented. Subjects (n=9) judged whether gaze pointed right or left relative to them. A Weibull function was fit to the data; α (point of equality) and β (slope) were determined for each subject. We found a head orientation bias corresponding to a repulsive effect only when using human-eyes (rightward head rotation; αMedian 2.89° vs 0.05°; signed-rank test; p = 0.0039; leftward head rotation; αMedian -2.74° vs 0.05°; signed-rank test; p = 0.0195). We also found that the slope of the psychometric curves was steeper using human-eyes (human-eyes vs monkey-eyes, βmedian 12.14 vs 3.87; signed-rank test; p = 0.0053). Subjects showed longer reaction times with monkey eyes (median difference= 61ms; Kruskal-Wallis p< 0.001). Our results showed that the Wollaston illusion is present in 3D displays, however, it vanishes when the white sclera is not present. This indicates that the white sclera in human eyes substantially contribute to improve the accuracy of gaze direction discrimination. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthFrench-language works237,207