Investigation of Camera-Free Eye-Tracking Glasses Compared to a Video-Based System
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
Technological advances in eye-tracking have resulted in lightweight, portable solutions that are capable of capturing eye movements beyond laboratory settings. Eye-tracking devices have typically relied on heavier, video-based systems to detect pupil and corneal reflections. Advances in mobile eye-tracking technology could facilitate research and its application in ecological settings; more traditional laboratory research methods are able to be modified and transferred to real-world scenarios. One recent technology, the AdHawk MindLink, introduced a novel camera-free system embedded in typical eyeglass frames. This paper evaluates the AdHawk MindLink by comparing the eye-tracking recordings with a research "gold standard", the EyeLink II. By concurrently capturing data from both eyes, we compare the capability of each eye tracker to quantify metrics from fixation, saccade, and smooth pursuit tasks-typical elements in eye movement research-across a sample of 13 adults. The MindLink system was capable of capturing fixation stability within a radius of less than 0.5∘, estimating horizontal saccade amplitudes with an accuracy of 0.04∘± 2.3∘, vertical saccade amplitudes with an accuracy of 0.32∘± 2.3∘, and smooth pursuit speeds with an accuracy of 0.5 to 3∘s, depending on the pursuit speed. While the performance of the MindLink system in measuring fixation stability, saccade amplitude, and smooth pursuit eye movements were slightly inferior to the video-based system, MindLink provides sufficient gaze-tracking capabilities for dynamic settings and experiments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it