skip to main content
10.1145/2675133.2675249acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Social Eye Tracking: Gaze Recall with Online Crowds

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 February 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Eye tracking is a compelling tool for revealing people's spatial-temporal distribution of visual attention. But quality eye tracking hardware is expensive and can only be used with one person at a time. Further, webcam eye tracking systems have significant limitations on head movement and lighting conditions that result in significant data loss and inaccuracies. To address these drawbacks, we introduce a new approach that harnesses the crowd to understand allocation of visual attention. In our approach, crowdsourcing participants use mouse clicks to self-report the positions and trajectory for the following valuable eye tracking measures: first gaze, last gaze and all gazes. We validate our crowdsourcing approach with a user study, which demonstrated good accuracy when compared to a real eye tracker. We then deployed our prototype, GazeCrowd, in a crowdsourcing setting, and showed that it accurately generated gaze heatmaps and trajectory maps. Such an approach will allow designers to evaluate and refine their visual design without requiring the use of limited/expensive eye trackers.

References

  1. Andrienko, G., et al. Visual analytics methodology for eye movement studies. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12, 18 (2012), 2889--2898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aznar, F., Pujol, M., Rizo, R. Generating saliency maps using human based computation agents. Current Topics in Artificial Intelligence (2010), 252--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Baud, O., et al. Trajectory comparison for civil aircraft. Aerospace Conference (2007), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Bednarik, R., Tukiainen, M. Validating the restricted focus viewer: a study using eye-movement tracking. Behavior Research Methods 39, 2 (2007), 274--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Blackwell, A.F., Jansen, A.R., Marriott, K. Restricted focus viewer: a tool for tracking visual attention. Theory and application of diagrams (2000), 162--177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bojko, A. Eye tracking the user experience: a practical guide to research. New York: Rosenfeld (2013), 8--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Borji, A., Itti, L. State-of-the-art in visual attention modeling. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 35, 1 (2013), 185- 207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Borji, A., Sihite, D. N., Itti, L. Quantitative analysis of human-model agreement in visual saliency modeling: a comparative study. IEEE Trans. on Image Processing 22, 1 (2012), 55--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Chen, M.C., Anderson, J.R., Sohn, M.H. What can a mouse cursor tell us more?: correlation of eye/mouse movements on web browsing. CHI 2001, 281--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cheng, S. Third eye: designing eye gaze visualizations for online shopping social recommendations. Extended Abstracts CSCW 2013, 125--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Duchowski, A. T., Price, M. M., Meyer, M., Orero, P. Aggregate gaze visualization with real-time heatmaps. ETRA 2012, 13--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., Säljö, R. Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations. Educational Psych. Review 23, 4 (2011), 523--552.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Henderson, J.M. Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7, 11, (2003), 498--504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Henderson, J.M., Hollingworth, A. High level scene perception. Ann. Rev. Psychology 50, (1999), 243--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Holmes, T., Zanker, J. Eye on the prize: using overt visual attention to drive fitness for interactive evolutionary computation. GECCO 2008, 1531--1538. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Hornof, A.J., Halverson, T. Cognitive strategies and eye movements for searching hierarchical computer displays. CHI 2003, 249--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Itti, L., Koch, C. Computational modeling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2, 3 (2001), 194--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Itti, L. Models of bottom-up attention and saliency. In Tsotsos (Eds.), Neurobiology of Attention, Elsevier (2005), 576--582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jarodzka, H., Holmqvist, K., and Nyström, M. A vectorbased, multidimensional scanpath similarity measure. ETRA 2010, 211--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Johansen, S. A., San Agustin, J., Skovsgaard, H., Hansen, J. P., Tall, M. Low cost vs. high-end eye tracking for usability testing. CHI 2011, 1177--1182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jones, M. N., & Mewhort, D. J. K. Tracking attention with the focus-window technique: The information filter must be calibrated. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (2004), 270--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein, R.M. Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 4 (2000), 138--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Lessing, S., Linge, L. IICap: A new environment for eye tracking data analysis. Master's thesis. University of Lund (2002), Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall, S.P. Identifying cognitive state from eye metrics. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 78, 5(2007), 165--185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nothdurft, H.C. Salience of feature contrast. Neurobiology of attention. Academic Press, (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Privitera, C. M. The scanpath theory: its definitions and later developments. SPIE 2006, 87--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Rodden, K., Fu, X., Aula, A., Spiro, I. Eye-mouse coordination patterns on web search results pages. Extended Abstracts CHI 2008, 2997--3002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Rudoy, D., et al. Crowdsourcing gaze data collection. CI 2012, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Yarbus, A.L. Eye-movements and vision. Plenum, 1967.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Social Eye Tracking: Gaze Recall with Online Crowds

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
      February 2015
      1956 pages
      ISBN:9781450329224
      DOI:10.1145/2675133

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 28 February 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '15 Paper Acceptance Rate161of575submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader