ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019
24-Gaze-Point Calibration Method for Improving the Precision of AC-EOG Gaze Estimation.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Object Grasp Control of a 3D Robot Arm by Combining EOG Gaze Estimation and Camera-Based Object Recognition.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Detecting Soldiers' Fatigue Using Eye-Tracking Glasses: Practical Field Applications and Research Opportunities.Military medicine · 2022Review
- Gaze Focalization System for Driving Applications Using OpenFace 2.0 Toolkit with NARMAX Algorithm in Accidental Scenarios.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Gaze and Eye Tracking: Techniques and Applications in ADAS.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper sought to improve the precision of the Alternating Current Electro-Occulo-Graphy (AC-EOG) gaze estimation method. The method consisted of two core techniques: To estimate eyeball movement from EOG signals and to convert signals from the eyeball movement to the gaze position. In conventional research, the estimations are computed with two EOG signals corresponding to vertical and horizontal movements. The conversion is based on the affine transformation and those parameters are computed with 24-point gazing data at the calibration. However, the transformation is not applied to all the 24-point gazing data, but to four spatially separated data (Quadrant method), and each result has different characteristics. Thus, we proposed the conversion method for 24-point gazing data at the same time: To assume an imaginary center (i.e., 25th point) on gaze coordinates with 24-point gazing data and apply an affine transformation to 24-point gazing data. Then, we conducted a comparative investigation between the conventional method and the proposed method. From the results, the average eye angle error for the cross-shaped electrode attachment is x = 2.27 ° ± 0.46 ° and y = 1.83 ° ± 0.34 ° . In contrast, for the plus-shaped electrode attachment, the average eye angle error is is x = 0.94 ° ± 0.19 ° and y = 1.48 ° ± 0.27 ° . We concluded that the proposed method offers a simpler and more precise EOG gaze estimation than the conventional method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.