4.6 Article

How to choose the size of facial areas of interest in interactive eye tracking

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263594

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [DO1312/5-1]
  2. Trier University Research Priority Program Psychobiology of Stress
  3. State Rhineland-Palatinate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of accuracy and areas of interest (AOIs) size on the classification of eye tracking data was evaluated in this study. The results showed that accuracy and AOI size had strong effects on gaze classification, and these effects were related to both false alarms and misses.
Advances in eye tracking technology have enabled the development of interactive experimental setups to study social attention. Since these setups differ substantially from the eye tracker manufacturer's test conditions, validation is essential with regard to the quality of gaze data and other factors potentially threatening the validity of this signal. In this study, we evaluated the impact of accuracy and areas of interest (AOIs) size on the classification of simulated gaze (fixation) data. We defined AOIs of different sizes using the Limited-Radius Voronoi-Tessellation (LRVT) method, and simulated gaze data for facial target points with varying accuracy. As hypothesized, we found that accuracy and AOI size had strong effects on gaze classification. In addition, these effects were not independent and differed in falsely classified gaze inside AOIs (Type I errors; false alarms) and falsely classified gaze outside the predefined AOIs (Type II errors; misses). Our results indicate that smaller AOIs generally minimize false classifications as long as accuracy is good enough. For studies with lower accuracy, Type II errors can still be compensated to some extent by using larger AOIs, but at the cost of more probable Type I errors. Proper estimation of accuracy is therefore essential for making informed decisions regarding the size of AOIs in eye tracking research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据