No abstract

Eye-tracking applications are surveyed in a breadth-first manner, reporting on work from the following domains: neuroscience, psychology, industrial engineering and human factors, marketing/advertising, and computer science. Following a review of traditionally diagnostic uses, emphasis is placed on interactive applications, differentiating between selective and gaze-contingent approaches.

No abstract

Pupil diameter and microsaccades are captured by an eye tracker and compared for their suitability as indicators of cognitive load (as beset by task difficulty). Specifically, two metrics are tested in response to task difficulty: (1) the change in pupil diameter with respect to inter- or intra-trial baseline, and (2) the rate and magnitude of microsaccades. Participants performed easy and difficult mental arithmetic tasks while fixating a central target. Inter-trial change in pupil diameter and microsaccade magnitude appear to adequately discriminate task difficulty, and hence cognitive load, if the implied causality can be assumed. This paper’s contribution corroborates previous work concerning microsaccade magnitude and extends this work by directly comparing microsaccade metrics to pupillometric measures. To our knowledge this is the first study to compare the reliability and sensitivity of task-evoked pupillary and microsaccadic measures of cognitive load.

Eye-typing performance results are reported from controlled studies comparing an on-screen keyboard and EyeWrite, a new on-screen gestural input alternative. Results from the first pilot study suggest the presence of a learning curve that novice users must overcome in order to gain proficiency in EyeWrite's use (requiring practice with its letter-like gestural alphabet). Results from the second longitudinal study indicate that EyeWrite's inherent multi-saccade handicap (4.52 saccades per character, frequency-weighted average) is sufficient for the on-screen keyboard to edge out EyeWrite in speed performance. Eye-typing speeds with EyeWrite approach 5 wpm on average (8 wpm attainable by proficient users), whereas keyboard users achieve about 7 wpm on average (in line with previous results). However, EyeWrite users leave significantly fewer uncorrected errors in the final text, with no significant difference in the number of errors corrected during entry, indicating a speedaccuracy trade-off. Subjective results indicate that participants consider EyeWrite significantly faster, easier to use, and prone to cause less ocular fatigue than the on-screen keyboard. In addition, EyeWrite consumes much less screen real-estate than an on-screen keyboard, giving it practical advantages for eye-based text entry.