Evaluation of eye gaze interaction

By L. Sibert, Robert J. K. Jacob. International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2000

648 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Ophthalmology, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/091a811b9e426dbebed704b62d57c98fb8b7b747

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

In Ophthalmology

In Human-Computer Interaction

Citations in the corpus

Eye Tracking and Eye-Based Human–Computer Interaction (2014, background): “While gaze may not be as accurate an input device as, for example, a manual mouse, if the target objects are large enough, gaze can be much faster at pointing (Sibert and Jacob 2000; Ware and Mikaelian 1987).”
Gaze + pinch interaction in virtual reality (2017, background): “Using the eyes for control, however, is not possible in the real world, although considered as efficient, convenient, and natural input for computer interfaces [15, 39, 52 ?”
A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications (2002, methodology): “Among various experiments, eye movements have been used to evaluate the grouping of tool icons, compare gaze-based and mouse interaction techniques (Sibert & Jacob, 2000), evaluate the organization of click-down menus, and more recently to test the organization of web pages.”
Starburst: A hybrid algorithm for video-based eye tracking combining feature-based and model-based approaches (2005, background): “These techniques may also be useful for normal interface usage given that when users intend to select an icon in a graphical user interface, they typically first look at the icon and thus selection can potentially be speeded with eye tracking [16].”
Human-Computer Interaction: Overview on State of the Art (2008, neutral): “The devices that rely on audition are more advance devices that usually need some kind of speech recognition.”
SALICON: Saliency in Context (2015, background): “Further, mouse tends to miss far and indistinguishable text, not only because mouse is slower than eye [29], but also due to the the relatively low peripheral resolution of text [17].”
Pursuits: spontaneous interaction with displays based on smooth pursuit eye movement and moving targets (2013, background): “This is usually achieved by us-ing dwell-time selection, which means that a selection is triggered once the eyes have been looking at a target for a certain amount of time [12, 24, 16].”
GAVIN (2021, background): “The use of gaze is a natural fit considering that it is reflective of the user’s visual attention [50, 59] and has long been used to reveal the reading strategies and comprehension ability of readers [11, 15, 33, 34].”
Multimodal Human Computer Interaction: A Survey (2005, methodology): “, using gaze as a pointer [165]), it is easy to foresee the importance of analysis at lower levels, particularly to infer the user’s cognitive state in affective interfaces (e.”
Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research (2003, background): “There are significant differences between a manual input source like the mouse and eye position to be considered in designing eye movement-based interaction techniques: Eye movement input is distinctly faster than other current input media (Ware & Mikaelian, 1987, Sibert & Jacob, 2000).”
Pinpointing: Precise Head- and Eye-Based Target Selection for Augmented Reality (2018, background): “Researchers have investigated solutions to this problem, mostly based on dwell time (e.g. [28,45,54,62]), smooth pursuits, where eye gaze follows continuously a target (e.g. [17,33,63,64]) and gaze gestures (e.g. [2,13,25,26]), but also by using a second modality for confirming selections (e.g. a…”
Identifying web usability problems from eye-tracking data (2007, background): “Amongst these, Goldberg and Kotval’s study [7], which compared the greatest number of metrics against standard usability evaluation outcomes, was highly influential.”