MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990854389 · doi:10.1167/19.13.17

The Neyman Pearson detection of microsaccades with maximum likelihood estimation of parameters

2019· article· en· W2990854389 on OpenAlexaff
Hongzhi Zhu, Septimiu E. Salcudean, Robert Rohling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosaccadeSaccadic maskingSaccadeComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEye trackingEye movementComputer visionGazePattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the fact that the velocity threshold method is widely applied, the detection of microsaccades continues to be a challenging problem, due to gaze-tracking inaccuracy and the transient nature of microsaccades. Important parameters associated with a saccadic event, e.g., saccade duration, amplitude, and maximum velocity, are sometimes imprecisely estimated, which may lead to biases in inferring the roles of microsaccades in perception and cognition. To overcome the biases and have a better detection algorithm for microsaccades, we propose a novel statistical model for the tracked gaze positions during eye fixations. In this model, we incorporate a parametrization that has been previously applied to model saccades, which allows us to veridically capture the velocity profile of saccadic eye movements. Based on our model, we derive the Neyman Pearson Detector (NPD) for saccadic events. Implemented in conjunction with the maximum likelihood estimation method, our NPD can detect a saccadic event and estimate all parameters simultaneously. Because of its adaptive nature and its statistical optimality, our NPD method was able to better detect microsaccades in some datasets when compared with a recently proposed state-of-the-art method based on convolutional neural networks. NPD also yielded comparable performance with a recently developed Bayesian algorithm, with the added benefit of modeling a more biologically veridical velocity profile of the saccade. As opposed to these algorithms, NPD can lend itself better to online saccade detection, and thus has potential for human-computer interaction applications. Our algorithm is publicly available at https://github.com/hz-zhu/NPD-micro-saccade-detection.

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)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207