pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.11115 · v1 · pith:OCVDBZLWnew · submitted 2019-07-25 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CV

Accurate and Robust Eye Contact Detection During Everyday Mobile Device Interactions

Mihai B\^ace , Sander Staal , Andreas Bulling This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 16:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CV
keywords eye contact detectionmobile HCIvisual attentionattention quantificationunsupervised detection
0
0 comments X

The pith

An extension of unsupervised eye contact detection enables accurate results during everyday mobile device interactions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a way to measure when users direct their gaze at a mobile device's screen using only its camera during normal activities. It adapts an existing unsupervised detection technique to cope with device motion, lighting shifts, and other mobile-specific issues. Evaluation on two datasets shows clear gains in detection accuracy across different phones, people, and settings. This supports new metrics for studying how attention is allocated in real mobile use without lab equipment or movement limits.

Core claim

The authors extend a state-of-the-art unsupervised eye contact detection method to address challenges specific to mobile interactive scenarios, yielding significant performance improvements for eye contact detection across mobile devices, users, or environmental conditions and enabling additional attention metrics for in-the-wild study.

What carries the argument

Adaptations to an unsupervised eye contact detection method that handle mobile device motion and environmental variability.

If this is right

  • Researchers gain the ability to quantify attention allocation during everyday mobile interactions without special eye-tracking hardware.
  • New metrics become available for assessing user interruptibility and noticeability of interface content on standard phones.
  • Studies of visual attention in mobile HCI can move from constrained lab settings to real-world use.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach may support adaptive mobile interfaces that respond to detected attention levels.
  • Combining the method with other phone sensors could improve robustness in highly dynamic environments.
  • Broader testing across more diverse user groups and device types would clarify how far the gains extend.

Load-bearing premise

The two current datasets sufficiently represent the range of mobile devices, users, and environmental conditions encountered in everyday interactions.

What would settle it

Testing detection accuracy on a new dataset collected from additional mobile devices, users, and uncontrolled everyday conditions not covered in the original two datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.11115 by Andreas Bulling, Mihai B\^ace, Sander Staal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We present a method to quantify users’ attentive behaviour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Method overview. Taking images from the front-facing camera of a mobile device, our method first uses a multi-task CNN for face detection (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sample results for eye contact detection on images from the two datasets, MFV and UFEV. The first row shows the input image; the second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Classification performance of the different methods on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-dataset classification performance of the different meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of the head pose angles (pitch and yaw) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Robustness evaluation of the three methods across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Our eye contact detection method enables studying and quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantification of human attention is key to several tasks in mobile human-computer interaction (HCI), such as predicting user interruptibility, estimating noticeability of user interface content, or measuring user engagement. Previous works to study mobile attentive behaviour required special-purpose eye tracking equipment or constrained users' mobility. We propose a novel method to sense and analyse visual attention on mobile devices during everyday interactions. We demonstrate the capabilities of our method on the sample task of eye contact detection that has recently attracted increasing research interest in mobile HCI. Our method builds on a state-of-the-art method for unsupervised eye contact detection and extends it to address challenges specific to mobile interactive scenarios. Through evaluation on two current datasets, we demonstrate significant performance improvements for eye contact detection across mobile devices, users, or environmental conditions. Moreover, we discuss how our method enables the calculation of additional attention metrics that, for the first time, enable researchers from different domains to study and quantify attention allocation during mobile interactions in the wild.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a novel extension to a state-of-the-art unsupervised eye contact detection method tailored to challenges in everyday mobile device interactions. It evaluates the approach on two current datasets and claims significant performance improvements in robustness across mobile devices, users, and environmental conditions, while also enabling new attention metrics for in-the-wild mobile HCI studies.

Significance. If the claimed performance gains and generalization hold with proper quantitative support, the work could meaningfully advance mobile HCI by enabling attention quantification (e.g., interruptibility, engagement) without specialized eye-tracking hardware, supporting studies in unconstrained settings.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and evaluation description: the central claim of 'significant performance improvements' and robustness 'across mobile devices, users, or environmental conditions' is asserted without any reported metrics, baselines, error bars, statistical tests, or description of the extension itself, making it impossible to determine whether the data support the claim (see reader's soundness assessment).
  2. [Evaluation section] Evaluation on two datasets: the robustness generalization rests on the assumption that the datasets sufficiently cover variation in device models, user demographics, lighting, and motion contexts, but no dataset names, sizes, or diversity statistics are supplied to allow verification of this coverage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. We address the major comments point-by-point below, agreeing where revisions are warranted to improve clarity and support for our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and evaluation description: the central claim of 'significant performance improvements' and robustness 'across mobile devices, users, or environmental conditions' is asserted without any reported metrics, baselines, error bars, statistical tests, or description of the extension itself, making it impossible to determine whether the data support the claim (see reader's soundness assessment).

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including concrete quantitative details. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract to report key performance metrics (e.g., accuracy/F1 improvements over the baseline), name the baselines, note any statistical tests, and briefly characterize the mobile-specific extension to the unsupervised method. This will make the central claims directly verifiable from the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation on two datasets: the robustness generalization rests on the assumption that the datasets sufficiently cover variation in device models, user demographics, lighting, and motion contexts, but no dataset names, sizes, or diversity statistics are supplied to allow verification of this coverage.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit dataset documentation. Although the manuscript references the two datasets used, we will revise the evaluation section to include a dedicated paragraph or table listing dataset names, participant counts, device models, demographic summaries, lighting/motion conditions, and any diversity statistics. This will allow readers to directly assess coverage of the claimed variation factors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; extends external SOTA and evaluates on external datasets

full rationale

The paper extends a state-of-the-art unsupervised eye contact detection method and reports performance on two external datasets. No derivations, equations, or predictions are shown that reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The central claims rest on external benchmarks rather than internal reductions, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained derivation against external references.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5698 in / 965 out tokens · 19966 ms · 2026-05-24T16:09:15.689851+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Murnane, Mark Matthews, Matthew Kay, Julie A

    Saeed Abdullah, Elizabeth L. Murnane, Mark Matthews, Matthew Kay, Julie A. Kientz, Geri Gay, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2016. Cognitive Rhythms: Unobtrusive and Continuous Sensing of Alertness Using a Mobile Phone. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’16). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 178–18...

    work page doi:10.1145/2971648.2971712 2016

  2. [2]

    Adamczyk and Brian P

    Piotr D. Adamczyk and Brian P. Bailey. 2004. If Not Now, when?: The Effects of Interruption at Different Moments Within Task Execution. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’04). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 271–278. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/985692.985727

    work page doi:10.1145/985692.985727 2004

  3. [3]

    Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, and Joerg Sander

    Mihael Ankerst, Markus M. Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, and Joerg Sander. 1999. OPTICS: Ordering Points to Identify the Clustering Structure. Sigmod Record 28 (6 1999), 49–60. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/304182.304187

    work page doi:10.1145/304182.304187 1999

  4. [4]

    Tadas Baltrusaitis, Peter Robinson, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2016. OpenFace: An open source facial behavior analysis toolkit.. In WACV. IEEE Computer Society, 1–10

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Andreas Bulling. 2016. Pervasive Attentive User Interfaces. IEEE Computer 1 (2016), 94–98

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Minsoo Choy, Daehoon Kim, Jae-Gil Lee, Heeyoung Kim, and Hiroshi Motoda. 2016. Looking Back on the Current Day: Interruptibility Prediction Using Daily Behavioral Features. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’16) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 1004–1015.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/29...

    work page doi:10.1145/2971648.2971649 2016

  7. [7]

    Alexandre De Masi and Katarzyna Wac. 2018. You’Re Using This App for What?: A mQoL Living Lab Study. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers (UbiComp ’18). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 612–617. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3267544 9

    work page doi:10.1145/3267305.3267544 2018

  8. [8]

    Zafeiriou

    Jiankang Deng, Yuxiang Zhou, Shiyang Cheng, and Stefanos P. Zafeiriou. 2018. Cascade Multi-View Hourglass Model for Robust 3D Face Alignment. 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018) (2018), 399–403

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Shell, Changuk Sohn, Daniel Cheng, and Omar Aoudeh

    Connor Dickie, Roel Vertegaal, Jeffrey S. Shell, Changuk Sohn, Daniel Cheng, and Omar Aoudeh. 2004. Eye Contact Sensing Glasses for Attention-sensitive Wearable Video Blogging. In CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’04) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 769–770.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/985921.985927

    work page doi:10.1145/985921.985927 2004

  10. [10]

    Tilman Dingler and Martin Pielot. 2015. I’Ll Be There for You: Quantifying Attentiveness Towards Mobile Messaging. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’15) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 1–5.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785840

    work page doi:10.1145/2785830.2785840 2015

  11. [11]

    Trinh Minh Tri Do, Jan Blom, and Daniel Gatica-Perez

    work page

  12. [12]

    In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’11)

    Smartphone Usage in the Wild: A Large-scale Analysis of Applications and Context. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’11). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 353–360. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2070481.2070550

    work page doi:10.1145/2070481.2070550

  13. [13]

    Anja Exler, Marcel Braith, Andrea Schankin, and Michael Beigl. 2016. Preliminary Investigations About Interruptibility of Smartphone Users at Specific Place Types. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct (UbiComp ’16) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 1590–1595.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/296...

    work page doi:10.1145/2968219.2968554 2016

  14. [14]

    Fathy, Vishal M

    Mohammed E. Fathy, Vishal M. Patel, and Rama Chellappa. 2015. Face-based Active Authentication on mobile devices. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (2015), 1687–1691

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Corey Holland and Oleg Komogortsev. 2012. Eye tracking on unmodified common tablets: challenges and solutions. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, 277–280

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Scott Hudson, James Fogarty, Christopher Atkeson, Daniel Avrahami, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Johnny Lee, and Jie Yang. 2003. Predicting Human Interruptibility with Sensors: A Wizard of Oz Feasibility Study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’03) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 257–264.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/1...

    work page doi:10.1145/642611.642657 2003

  17. [17]

    Zhiping Jiang, Jinsong Han, Chen Qian, Wei Xi, Kun Zhao, Han Ding, Shaojie Tang, Jizhong Zhao, and Panlong Yang. 2016. V ADS: Visual attention detection with a smartphone. In Computer Communications, IEEE INFOCOM 2016-The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1–9

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Karlson, Shamsi T

    Amy K. Karlson, Shamsi T. Iqbal, Brian Meyers, Gonzalo Ramos, Kathy Lee, and John C. Tang. 2010. Mobile Taskflow in Context: A Screenshot Study of Smartphone Usage. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2009–2018.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753631

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753631 2010

  19. [19]

    Mohamed Khamis, Florian Alt, and Andreas Bulling. 2018a. The Past, Present, and Future of Gaze-enabled Handheld Mobile Devices: Survey and Lessons Learned. In Proc. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI). 38:1–38:17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3229434.3229452

    work page doi:10.1145/3229434.3229452

  20. [20]

    Mohamed Khamis, Anita Baier, Niels Henze, Florian Alt, and Andreas Bulling. 2018b. Understanding Face and Eye Visibility in Front-Facing Cameras of Smartphones Used in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY , USA, Article 280, 12 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173854

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173854 2018

  21. [21]

    Kyle Krafka, Aditya Khosla, Petr Kellnhofer, Harini Kannan, Suchendra Bhandarkar, Wojciech Matusik, and Antonio Torralba. 2016. Eye Tracking for Everyone. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Uichin Lee, Joonwon Lee, Minsam Ko, Changhun Lee, Yuhwan Kim, Subin Yang, Koji Yatani, Gahgene Gweon, Kyong-Mee Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2014. Hooked on Smartphones: An Exploratory Study on Smartphone Overuse Among College Students. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2327–2336....

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557366 2014

  23. [23]

    Vincent Lepetit, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Pascal Fua. 2009. EPnP: An accurate O(n) solution to the PnP problem. International Journal of Computer Vision 81 (2 2009). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11263-008-0152-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11263-008-0152-6 2009

  24. [24]

    Lane, and Fahim Kawsar

    Akhil Mathur, Nicholas D. Lane, and Fahim Kawsar

    work page

  25. [25]

    In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’16)

    Engagement-aware Computing: Modelling User Engagement from Mobile Contexts. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’16) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 622–633.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971760

    work page doi:10.1145/2971648.2971760 2016

  26. [26]

    Lori McCay-Peet, Mounia Lalmas, and Vidhya Navalpakkam. 2012. On Saliency, Affect and Focused Attention. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 541–550.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207751 10

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2207751 2012

  27. [27]

    Abhinav Mehrotra, Veljko Pejovic, Jo Vermeulen, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. My Phone and Me: Understanding People’s Receptivity to Mobile Notifications. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 1021–1032.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858566

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858566 2016

  28. [28]

    Philipp Müller, Daniel Buschek, Michael Xuelin Huang, and Andreas Bulling. 2019. Reducing Calibration Drift in Mobile Eye Trackers by Exploiting Mobile Phone Usage. In Proc. International Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3314111.3319918

    work page doi:10.1145/3314111.3319918 2019

  29. [29]

    Philipp Müller, Michael Xuelin Huang, Xucong Zhang, and Andreas Bulling. 2018. Robust Eye Contact Detection in Natural Multi-Person Interactions Using Gaze and Speaking Behaviour. In Proc. International Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA). 31:1–31:10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3204493.3204549

    work page doi:10.1145/3204493.3204549 2018

  30. [30]

    Antti Oulasvirta, Sakari Tamminen, Virpi Roto, and Jaana Kuorelahti. 2005. Interaction in 4-second Bursts: The Fragmented Nature of Attentional Resources in Mobile HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’05) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 919–928.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055101

    work page doi:10.1145/1054972.1055101 2005

  31. [31]

    Martin Pielot, Bruno Cardoso, Kleomenis Katevas, Joan Serrà, Aleksandar Matic, and Nuria Oliver. 2017. Beyond Interruptibility: Predicting Opportune Moments to Engage Mobile Phone Users. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1, 3, Article 91 (Sept. 2017), 25 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3130956

    work page doi:10.1145/3130956 2017

  32. [32]

    Martin Pielot, Karen Church, and Rodrigo de Oliveira. 2014a. An In-situ Study of Mobile Phone Notifications. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services (MobileHCI ’14). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 233–242. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628364

    work page doi:10.1145/2628363.2628364

  33. [33]

    Martin Pielot, Rodrigo de Oliveira, Haewoon Kwak, and Nuria Oliver. 2014b. Didn’T You See My Message?: Predicting Attentiveness to Mobile Instant Messages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 3319–3328.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2556973

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2556973

  34. [34]

    Martin Pielot, Tilman Dingler, Jose San Pedro, and Nuria Oliver. 2015. When Attention is Not Scarce - Detecting Boredom from Mobile Phone Usage. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’15) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 825–836.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804252

    work page doi:10.1145/2750858.2804252 2015

  35. [35]

    Qing-Xing Qu, Le Zhang, Wen-Yu Chao, and Vincent Duffy. 2017. User Experience Design Based on Eye-Tracking Technology: A Case Study on Smartphone APPs. In Advances in Applied Digital Human Modeling and Simulation, Vincent G. Duffy (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 303–315

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Rajeev Ranjan, Shalini De Mello, and Jan Kautz. 2018. Light-Weight Head Pose Invariant Gaze Tracking.2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) (2018), 2237–22378

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Adria Recasens, Aditya Khosla, Carl V ondrick, and Antonio Torralba. 2015. Where are they looking? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 , C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 199–207. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 5848-where-are-they-looking.pdf

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Ted Selker, Andrea Lockerd, and Jorge Martinez. 2001. Eye-R, a Glasses-mounted Eye Motion Detection Interface. In CHI ’01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’01) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 179–180.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/634067.634176

    work page doi:10.1145/634067.634176 2001

  39. [39]

    Shell, Roel Vertegaal, and Alexander W

    Jeffrey S. Shell, Roel Vertegaal, and Alexander W. Skaburskis. 2003. EyePliances: Attention-seeking Devices That Respond to Visual Attention. In CHI ’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’03) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 770–771. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/765891.765981

    work page doi:10.1145/765891.765981 2003

  40. [40]

    Smith, Qi Yin, Steven K

    Brian A. Smith, Qi Yin, Steven K. Feiner, and Shree K. Nayar. 2013. Gaze Locking: Passive Eye Contact Detection for Human-object Interaction. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’13). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 271–280.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2501988.2501994

    work page doi:10.1145/2501988.2501994 2013

  41. [41]

    Julian Steil, Philipp Müller, Yusuke Sugano, and Andreas Bulling. 2018. Forecasting User Attention During Everyday Mobile Interactions Using Device-integrated and Wearable Sensors. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’18). ACM, New York, NY , USA, Article 1, 13 pages...

    work page doi:10.1145/3229434.3229439 2018

  42. [42]

    Dereck Toker, Cristina Conati, Ben Steichen, and Giuseppe Carenini. 2013. Individual User Characteristics and Information Visualization: Connecting the Dots Through Eye Tracking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 295–304.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470696

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2470696 2013

  43. [43]

    Vytautas Vaitukaitis and Andreas Bulling. 2012. Eye gesture recognition on portable devices. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing . ACM, 711–714. 11

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Roel Vertegaal and others. 2003. Attentive user interfaces. Commun. ACM 46, 3 (2003), 30–33

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    Michael V oit and Rainer Stiefelhagen. 2008. Deducing the Visual Focus of Attention from Head Pose Estimation in Dynamic Multi-view Meeting Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’08) . ACM, New York, NY , USA, 173–180. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1452392.1452425

    work page doi:10.1145/1452392.1452425 2008

  46. [46]

    Pierre Weill-Tessier, Jayson Turner, and Hans Gellersen

    work page

  47. [47]

    In Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications

    How do you look at what you touch?: a study of touch interaction and gaze correlation on tablets. In Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications. ACM, 329–330

    work page

  48. [48]

    Erroll Wood and Andreas Bulling. 2014. Eyetab: Model-based gaze estimation on unmodified tablet computers. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, 207–210

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Z. Ye, Y . Li, Y . Liu, C. Bridges, A. Rozga, and J. M. Rehg. 2015. Detecting bids for eye contact using a wearable camera. In 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), V ol. 1. 1–8.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FG.2015.7163095

    work page doi:10.1109/fg.2015.7163095 2015

  50. [50]

    ∥дk ∥1 − 2 dÕ i=1 |дk,i |I(siдn(дk,i , siдn( ˜дk −t,i )) #) + δ2 k 2 ®L 1 = −δk 1 −β 1 −βk k −1Õ t =0 βt

    K. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, and Y . Qiao. 2016. Joint Face Detection and Alignment Using Multitask Cascaded Convolutional Networks. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 23, 10 (Oct. 2016), 1499–1503. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2016.2603342

    work page doi:10.1109/lsp.2016.2603342 2016

  51. [51]

    Mengmi Zhang, Keng Teck Ma, Joo-Hwee Lim, Qi Zhao, and Jiashi Feng. 2017a. Deep Future Gaze: Gaze Anticipation on Egocentric Videos Using Adversarial Networks.. In CVPR. 3539–3548

    work page

  52. [52]

    Xucong Zhang, Michael Xuelin Huang, Yusuke Sugano, and Andreas Bulling. 2018. Training Person-Specific Gaze Estimators from Interactions with Multiple Devices. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). 624:1–624:12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174198

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3174198 2018

  53. [53]

    Xucong Zhang, Yusuke Sugano, and Andreas Bulling. 2017b. Everyday eye contact detection using unsupervised gaze target discovery. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 193–203

    work page

  54. [55]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA ’18)

    Revisiting Data Normalization for Appearance-based Gaze Estimation. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA ’18). ACM, New York, NY , USA, Article 12, 9 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3204493.3204548

    work page doi:10.1145/3204493.3204548 2018

  55. [56]

    Xucong Zhang, Yusuke Sugano, and Andreas Bulling

    work page

  56. [57]

    Evaluation of Appearance-Based Methods and Implications for Gaze-Based Applications. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300646

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300646

  57. [58]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y . Sugano, M. Fritz, and A. Bulling. 2015. Appearance-based gaze estimation in the wild. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 4511–4520. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2015.7299081

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7299081 2015

  58. [59]

    Xucong Zhang, Yusuke Sugano, Mario Fritz, and Andreas Bulling. 2017. It’s Written All Over Your Face: Full-Face Appearance-Based Gaze Estimation. In 1st International Workshop on Deep Affective Learning and Context Modelling. IEEE, 2299–2308

    work page 2017

  59. [60]

    Xucong Zhang, Yusuke Sugano, Mario Fritz, and Andreas Bulling. 2019. MPIIGaze: Real-World Dataset and Deep Appearance-Based Gaze Estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) 41, 1 (2019), 162–175. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2778103 12

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2017.2778103 2019