Cited by 234Gaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyVisual perception and processing mechanismsInteractive and Immersive Displays

A comparison of geometric- and regression-based mobile gaze-tracking

Open access
Browatzki, Björn, Bülthoff, Heinrich H., Chuang, Lewis L.·2014·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

Video-based gaze-tracking systems are typically restricted in terms of their effective tracking space. This constraint limits the use of eyetrackers in studying mobile human behavior. Here, we compare two possible approaches for estimating the gaze of participants who are free to walk in a large space whilst looking at different regions of a large display. Geometrically, we linearly combined eye-in-head rotations and head-in-world coordinates to derive a gaze vector and its intersection with a planar display, by relying on the use of a head-mounted eyetracker and body-motion tracker. Alternatively, we employed Gaussian process regression to estimate the gaze intersection directly from the input data itself. Our evaluation of both methods indicates that a regression approach can deliver comparable results to a geometric approach. The regression approach is favored, given that it has the potential for further optimization, provides confidence bounds for its gaze estimates and offers greater flexibility in its implementation. Open-source software for the methods reported here is also provided for user implementation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00200

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Browatzki, B., Bülthoff, H. H., & Chuang, L. L.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics (DE)
Corresponding author
Chuang, Lewis L.
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2014-04-08
Volume
8
Pages
200-200
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009831234
Cited by
234
References
21
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 3
FWCI
80.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation
  • National Research Foundation of Korea
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
Keywords
body motion tracking, Gaussian process regression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review