A scoping review of eye tracking metrics used to assess visuomotor behaviours of upper limb prosthesis users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced upper limb prostheses aim to restore coordinated hand and arm function. However, this objective can be difficult to quantify as coordinated movements require an intact visuomotor system. Eye tracking has recently been applied to study the visuomotor behaviours of upper limb prosthesis users by enabling the calculation of eye movement metrics. This scoping review aims to characterize the visuomotor behaviours of upper limb prosthesis users as described by eye tracking metrics, to summarize the eye tracking metrics used to describe prosthetic behaviour, and to identify gaps in the literature and potential areas for future research. A review of the literature was performed to identify articles that reported eye tracking metrics to evaluate the visual behaviours of individuals using an upper limb prosthesis. Data on the level of amputation, type of prosthetic device, type of eye tracker, primary eye metrics, secondary outcome metrics, experimental task, aims, and key findings were extracted. Seventeen studies were included in this scoping review. A consistently reported finding is that prosthesis users have a characteristic visuomotor behaviour that differs from that of individuals with intact arm function. Visual attention has been reported to be directed more towards the hand and less towards the target during object manipulation tasks. A gaze switching strategy and delay to disengage gaze from the current target has also been reported. Differences in the type of prosthetic device and experimental task have revealed some distinct gaze behaviours. Control factors have been shown to be related to gaze behaviour, while sensory feedback and training interventions have been demonstrated to reduce the visual attention associated with prosthesis use. Eye tracking metrics have also been used to assess the cognitive load and sense of agency of prosthesis users. Overall, there is evidence that eye tracking is an effective tool to quantitatively assess the visuomotor behaviour of prosthesis users and the recorded eye metrics are sensitive to change in response to various factors. Additional studies are needed to validate the eye metrics used to assess cognitive load and sense of agency in upper limb prosthesis users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".