Tracking the Progression of Reading Through Eye-gaze Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we consider the problem of tracking the progression of reading through eye-gaze measurements. Such an algorithm is novel and will ultimately help to develop a method of analyzing eye-gaze data which had been collected during reading activity in order to uncover crucial information regarding the individual's interest level and quality of experience while reading a passage of text or book. Additionally, such an approach will serve as a “visual signature” - a method of verifying if an individual has indeed given adequate attention to critical text-based information. Further, an accurate “reading-progression-tracker” has potential applications in educational institutions, e-readers and parenting solutions. Tracking the progression of reading remains a challenging problem due to the fact that eye-gaze movements are highly noisy and the eye-gaze is easily distracted in a limited space, like an e-book. In a prior work, we proposed an approach to analyzing eye-gaze fixation points collected while reading a page of text in order to classify each measurement to a line of text; this approach did not consider tracking the progression of reading along the line of text. In this paper, we extend the capabilities of the previous algorithm in order to accurately track the progression of reading along each line. the proposed approach employs least squares batch estimation in order to estimate three states of the horizontal saccade: position, velocity and acceleration. First, the proposed approach is objectively evaluated on a simulated eye-gaze dataset. Then, the proposed algorithm is demonstrated on real data collected by a Gazepoint eye-tracker while the subject is reading several pages from an electronic book.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".