ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Algorithmic gaze annotation for mobile eye-tracking.
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.
- PyNeon: A Python package for the analysis of Neon multimodal mobile eye-tracking data.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
Mobile eye-tracking is increasingly used to study human behavior in situ; however, the analysis of the footage is typically performed manually and therefore is slow and laborious. The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the footage obtained using mobile eye-tracking could be annotated automatically using computer vision algorithms. We developed an open-source Python package that combined two computer vision algorithms to automatically annotate human-body-related areas of interest when two participants interacted with each other. To validate the algorithm, three experienced human raters coded the gaze direction with respect to one of seven a priori defined areas of interest during the task. To test the reliability of the algorithm, the agreement between the human raters was compared with the results obtained from the algorithm. A total of 1,188 frames from 13 trials were compared, with the results revealing substantial agreement between the algorithm and human raters (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.61). The algorithm strictly annotated whether gaze was within or outside of the specified areas of interest, whereas human raters seemed to apply a tolerance when gaze was lying slightly outside the areas of interest. In sum, the computer algorithmic approach appears to provide a valid means of automatically annotating mobile eye-tracking footage in highly dynamic contexts. The possibility of automatically annotating eye-tracking footage of human interactions allows for automatic assessment of visual attention, gaze, and intentions across sectors such as educational settings, pedestrian navigation, and sport.
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.