Evaluating the Data Quality of Eye Tracking Signals from a Virtual Reality System: Case Study using SMI's Eye-Tracking HTC Vive
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
We evaluated the data quality of SMI's tethered eye-tracking head-mounted display based on the HTC Vive (ET-HMD) during a random saccade task. We measured spatial accuracy, spatial precision, temporal precision, linearity, and crosstalk. We proposed the use of a non-parametric spatial precision measure based on the median absolute deviation (MAD). Our linearity analysis considered both the slope and adjusted R-squared of a best-fitting line. We were the first to test for a quadratic component to crosstalk. We prepended a calibration task to the random saccade task and evaluated 2 methods to employ this user-supplied calibration. For this, we used a unique binning approach to choose samples to be included in the recalibration analyses. We compared our quality measures between the ET-HMD and our EyeLink 1000 (SR-Research, Ottawa, Ontario, CA). We found that the ET-HMD had significantly better spatial accuracy and linearity fit than our EyeLink, but both devices had similar spatial precision and linearity slope. We also found that, while the EyeLink had no significant crosstalk, the ET-HMD generally exhibited quadratic crosstalk. Fourier analysis revealed that the binocular signal was a low-pass filtered version of the monocular signal. Such filtering resulted in the binocular signal being useless for the study of high-frequency components such as saccade dynamics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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