Gaze Guidance is a growing area in the field of Human-Computer
Interaction. The
goal is to support the viewer during visual inspection of his/her environment
by giving suggestions of where to look (Barth et al 2004). Gaze guidance
is potentially applicable in situations where the viewer is confronted with a
large visual display (or visual field), which needs to be searched for specific
information (PC monitor, car cockpit, medical image analysis, Virtual Reality,
gaming).
[link to project website] the website of the 5-lab European
collaboration
[pdf manuscript] manuscript full of ideas for
human-computer interaction
[talk] slides about
this issue
My task is to find
gaze-capturing events, with which one can attract a viewer’s gaze to preferred
locations in a ‘non-irritating’, comfortable manner. The following is a summary
of aspects, which one has to consider when building such a system:
This would be the situation for a car cockpit:
But when approaching such a
system it may also be useful to firstly implement and test simpler guidance
tasks. In my manuscript (pdf),
I provide a number of ideas for gaze guidance on a PC monitor. One specific
idea I pursue is the Gaze-Recapturing Editor
Cursor together with Michael Dorr.
Method: Currently we are testing the idea of gaze guidance using a letter
detection and identification search using the following type of display (it is
one frame of a dynamic-noise movie, letters are shown schematically only).
There exists saccadic
undershoot…
… and
this is the summary graph:
Summary of recommendations for
designing gaze guidance markers:
1) Aspect range: To compensate for the
decline in peripheral acuity, the marker’s amplitude is increased with
eccentricity by an exponentially saturating function: amrk(e)
= amin + amax-exp(-e)amax (amin = minimal amplitude, amax = maximal amplitude).
2) Aspect
location: If
a compensation for undershoot is desired, the marker should be placed radially
beyond its target by 18% of target eccentricity. Such compensation is probably
required when small, hard-to-detect targets are to be foveated which are
embedded in a complex background.
3) Aspect appearance: a) Motion markers are
better gaze-capturing events than stationary markers,
however they are potentially detrimental to recognition performance at their
location.
b) If one uses a luminance marker, which is merely
added to the luminance profile to make it just-noticeable, it may be necessary
to set a lower bound in order to avoid the ‘neglect’ of very low luminance
markers.
4) Aspect occurrence: In case of guidance toward
briefly appearing stimuli, the optimal gap size between marker offset and
target onset is ca. 100ms to avoid strong forward-masking effects.