skip to main content
research-article

Gaze Transition Entropy

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 December 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article details a two-step method of quantifying eye movement transitions between areas of interest (AOIs). First, individuals' gaze switching patterns, represented by fixated AOI sequences, are modeled as Markov chains. Second, Shannon's entropy coefficient of the fit Markov model is computed to quantify the complexity of individual switching patterns. To determine the overall distribution of attention over AOIs, the entropy coefficient of individuals' stationary distribution of fixations is calculated. The novelty of the method is that it captures the variability of individual differences in eye movement characteristics, which are then summarized statistically. The method is demonstrated on gaze data collected from two studies, during free viewing of classical art paintings. Normalized Shannon's entropy, derived from individual transition matrices, is related to participants' individual differences as well as to either their aesthetic impression or recognition of artwork. Low transition and high stationary entropies suggest greater curiosity mixed with a higher subjective aesthetic affinity toward artwork, possibly indicative of visual scanning of the artwork in a more deliberate way. Meanwhile, both high transition and stationary entropies may be indicative of recognition of familiar artwork.

References

  1. C. Acartürk and C. Habel. 2012. Eye tracking in multimodal comprehension of graphs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Technology-Enhanced Diagrams Research (TEDR'12). 11--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Robert Russell Althoff. 1998. Eye Movement-Based Memory Assessment: The Use of Eye Movement Monitoring as an Indirect Measure of Memory. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Roman Bednarik, Niko Myller, Erkki Sutinen, and Markku Tukiainen. 2005. Applying eye-movement tracking to program visualization. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VLHCC'05). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 302--304. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2005.20 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Julian Besag and Debashis Mondal. 2013. Exact goodness-of-fit tests for Markov chains. Biometrics 69, 2, 488--496.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Cezary Biele, Agata Kopacz, and Krzysztof Krejtz. 2013. Shall we care about the user's feelings? Influence of affect and engagement on visual attention. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia, Interaction, Design, and Innovation (MIDI'13). ACM, New York, NY, Article No. 7. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2500342.2500349 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gabriela Ciuperca and Valerie Girardin. 2005. On the estimation of the entropy rate of finite Markov chains. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas. 2006. Elements of Information Theory (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jhani A. de Bruin, Katherine M. Malan, and Jan H. P. Eloff. 2013. Saccade deviation indicators for automated eye tracking analysis. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Eye Tracking South Africa (ETSA'13). ACM, New York, NY, 47--54. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2509315.2509324 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Andrew T. Duchowski, Sabarish V. Babu, Jeff Bertrand, and Krzysztof Krejtz. 2014. Gaze analytics pipeline for unity 3D integration: Signal filtering and analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Eye Tracking for Spatial Research (ET4S'14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Andrew T. Duchowski, Jason Driver, Sheriff Jolaoso, William Tan, Beverly N. Ramey, and Ami Robbins. 2010. Scanpath comparison revisited. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA'10). ACM, New York, NY, 219--226. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1743666.1743719 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Laura Ekroot and Thomas M. Cover. 1993. The entropy of Markov trajectories. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 39, 4, 1418--1421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Stephen R. Ellis and Lawrence Stark. 1986. Statistical dependency in visual scanning. Human Factors 28, 4, 421--438. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Miquel Feixas, Esteve del Acebo, Philippe Bekaert, and Mateu Sbert. 1999. An information theory framework for the analysis of scene complexity. In EuroGraphics, P. Brunet and R. Scopigno (Eds.), Vol. 18. EuroGraphics, 95--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Peter Fischer and Elizabeth Peinsipp-Byma. 2007. Eye tracking for objective usability evaluation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Eye Movements (ECEM'07).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Joseph H. Goldberg and Xerxes P. Kotval. 1999. Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 24, 631--645.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Thomas Grindinger, Andrew T. Duchowski, and Michael Sawyer. 2010a. Group-wise similarity and classification of aggregate scanpaths. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA'10). ACM, New York, NY, 101--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Thomas J. Grindinger, Vidya N. Murali, Stephen Tetreault, Andrew T. Duchowski, Stan T. Birchfield, and Pilar Orero. 2010b. Algorithm for discriminating aggregate gaze points: Comparison with salient regions-of-interest. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Gaze Sensing and Interactions (IWCGI'10). 390--399. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jean Hausser and Korbinian Strimmer. 2009. Entropy inference and the James-Stein estimator, with application to nonlinear gene association networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research 1469--1484. http://jmlr.org/papers/v10/hausser09a.html. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Elizabeth Hume and Frédéric Mailhot. 2013. The role of entropy and surprisal in phonologization and language change. In Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologization, Alan C. L. Yu (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 29--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Alex D. Hwang, Hsueh-Cheng Wang, and Marc Pomplun. 2011. Semantic guidance of eye movements in real-world scenes. Vision Research 51, 1192--1205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Halszka Jarodzka, Kenneth Holmqvist, and Marcus Nyström. 2010. A vector-based, multidimensional scanpath similarity measure. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA'10). ACM, New York, NY, 211--218. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1743666.1743718 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Todd B. Kashdan, Matt W. Gallagher, Paul J. Silvia, Beate P. Winterstein, William E. Breen, Daniel Terhar, and Michael F. Steger. 2009. The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality 43, 987--998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Krzysztof Krejtz, Tomasz Szmidt, Andrew T. Duchowski, and Izabela Krejtz. 2014. Entropy-based statistical analysis of eye movement transitions. In Proceedings of the 2014 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA'14). ACM, New York, NY. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2578153.2578168 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Anje Kruizinga, Ben Mulder, and Dick de Waard. 2006. Eye scan patterns in a simulated ambulance dispatchers task. In Developments in Human Factors in Transportation, Design, and Evaluation. Shaker Publishing, Orbassano, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Solomon Kullback and R. A. Leibler. 1951. On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 2222, 79--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. John Liechty, Rik Pieters, and Michel Wedel. 2003. Global and local covert visual attention: Evidence from a Bayesian hidden Markov model. Psychometrika 68, 4, 519--541.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Vincente Ponsoda, D. Scott, and J. M. Findlay. 1995. A probability vector and transition matrix analysis of eye movements during visual search. Acta Psychologica 88, 167--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ ISBN 3-900051-07-0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Frederick Shic, Katarzyna Chawarska, Jessica, and Brian Scassellati. 2008. Autism, eye-tracking, entropy. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL'08). 73--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Lisa Vandeberg, Samantha Bouwmeester, Bruno R. Bocanegra, and Rolf A. Zwaan. 2013. Detecting cognitive interactions through eye movement transitions. Journal of Memory and Language 69, 445--460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Boris M. Velichkovsky, Markus Joos, Jens R. Helmert, and Sebastian Pannasch. 2005. Two visual systems and their eye movements: Evidence from static and dynamic scene perception. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci'05). 2283--2288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Robin S. Weiss, Roger Remington, and Stephen R. Ellis. 1989. Sampling distributions of the entropy in visual scanning. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 21, 3, 348--352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Gaze Transition Entropy

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
      ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 13, Issue 1
      December 2015
      112 pages
      ISSN:1544-3558
      EISSN:1544-3965
      DOI:10.1145/2837040
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      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: 10 December 2015
      • Revised: 1 September 2015
      • Accepted: 1 September 2015
      • Received: 1 September 2014
      Published in tap Volume 13, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader