4.6 Article

Investigating Visual Perception Impairments through Serious Games and Eye Tracking to Anticipate Handwriting Difficulties

期刊

SENSORS
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s23041765

关键词

gamification; dysgraphia; eye tracking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dysgraphia is a learning disability characterized by below-average handwriting production. This study examines the role of visual perception in handwriting skills through gamified visual perception tests played with an eye tracker. Machine learning models using game performance, eye-tracking, and drawing data as predictors successfully predicted children at risk of dysgraphia. These results suggest the potential of a new tool for early screening of dysgraphia based on visual perception skills.
Dysgraphia is a learning disability that causes handwritten production below expectations. Its diagnosis is delayed until the completion of handwriting development. To allow a preventive training program, abilities not directly related to handwriting should be evaluated, and one of them is visual perception. To investigate the role of visual perception in handwriting skills, we gamified standard clinical visual perception tests to be played while wearing an eye tracker at three difficulty levels. Then, we identified children at risk of dysgraphia through the means of a handwriting speed test. Five machine learning models were constructed to predict if the child was at risk, using the CatBoost algorithm with Nested Cross-Validation, with combinations of game performance, eye-tracking, and drawing data as predictors. A total of 53 children participated in the study. The machine learning models obtained good results, particularly with game performances as predictors (F1 score: 0.77 train, 0.71 test). SHAP explainer was used to identify the most impactful features. The game reached an excellent usability score (89.4 +/- 9.6). These results are promising to suggest a new tool for dysgraphia early screening based on visual perception skills.

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