ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Evaluation of data collection and annotation approaches of driver gaze dataset.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Detecting gaze shifts of moving observers in dynamic environments.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Driver gaze estimation is important for various driver gaze applications such as building advanced driving assistance systems and understanding driver gaze behavior. Gaze estimation in terms of gaze zone classification requires large-scale labeled data for supervised machine learning and deep learning-based models. In this study, we collected a driver gaze dataset and annotated it using three annotation approaches - manual annotation, Speak2Label, and moving pointer-based annotation. Moving pointer-based annotation was introduced as a new data annotation approach inspired by screen-based gaze data collection. For each data collection approach, ground truth labels were obtained using an eye tracker. The proposed moving pointer-based approach was found to achieve higher accuracy compared to the other two approaches. Due to the lower accuracy of manual annotation and the Speak2Label method, we performed a detailed analysis of these two annotation approaches to understand the reasons for the misclassification. A confusion matrix was also plotted to compare the manually assigned gaze labels with the ground truth labels. This was followed by misclassification analysis, two-sample t-test-based analysis to understand if head pose and pupil position of driver influence the misclassification by the annotators. In Speak2Label, misclassification was observed due to a lag between the speech and gaze time series, which can be visualized in the graph and cross-correlation analysis were done to compute the maximum lag between the two time series. Finally, we created a benchmark Eye Tracker-based Driver Gaze Dataset (ET-DGaze) that consists of the driver's face images and corresponding gaze labels obtained from the eye tracker.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40369353What 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.