MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097283221

Tracking the Line of Primary Gaze in a Walking Simulator: Modeling and Calibration

2007· article· en· W7097283221 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBitTorrent trackerTracking (education)Eye trackingCalibrationTracking systemGazeLine (geometry)Point (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a system for tracking the Line of Primary Gaze (LoPG) of subjects as they view a large projection screen. LoPG is monitored using a magnetic head tracker and a tracking algorithm. LoPG tracking can also be combined with a head mounted eye tracker to enable gaze tracking. The algorithm presented uses a polynomial function to correct for distortion in magnetic tracker readings, a geometric model for computing LoPG from corrected tracker measurements, and a method for finding intersection of the LoPG with a screen. Calibration techniques for the above methods are presented. Results of two experiments validating the algorithm and calibration methods are also reported. Experiments showed an improvement in accuracy of LoPG tracking provided by each of the two presented calibration steps yielding errors in primary gaze-point measurements of less than two degrees over a wide range of head positions. AUTHOR'S NOTE This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grant EY12890. Commercial eye tracker manufacturers, such as SR Research (Osgoode, ON Canada), ISCAN (Burlington, MA) and Applied Science Laboratories (ASL: Bedford, MA), market systems for monitoring point of regard on a display surface (combining head and eye tracking), but the manufacturers of these systems provide the devices as black-box tools. This makes it difficult for researchers to modify these trackers for special applications such as the large display and wide range of head movement needed for our walking simulator (Figure 1). This simulator takes the form of a projected virtual environment where a subject views computer generated images projected onto a large screen (Southard, 1995). Access to the algorithms and intermediate variables computed within the commercial gaze ...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207