Sub-centimeter 3D gaze vector accuracy on real-world tasks: an investigation of eye and motion capture calibration routines
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
Measuring where people look in real-world tasks has never been easier but analyzing the resulting data remains laborious. One solution integrates head-mounted eye tracking with motion capture but no best practice exists regarding what calibration data to collect. Here, we compared four ~1 min calibration routines used to train linear regression gaze vector models and examined how the coordinate system, eye data used and location of fixation changed gaze vector accuracy on three trial types: calibration, validation (static fixation to task relevant locations), and task (naturally occurring fixations during object interaction). Impressively, predicted gaze vectors show ~1 cm of error when looking straight ahead toward objects during natural arms-length interaction. This result was achieved predicting fixations in a Spherical coordinate frame, from the best monocular data, and, surprisingly, depends little on the calibration routine.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it