Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Towards Understanding of eSports Athletes' Potentialities: The Sensing System for Data Collection and Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that professional and amateur CS:GO players can be separated by two measured behaviors: keeping gaze on the screen center rather than the radar, and avoiding forward movement while shooting.

desk verdict The platform is a real, reusable contribution; the pro-vs-amateur gaze finding is plausible but under-supported, and the unvalidated zone-mapping assumption is the main weakness. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06403 v1 pith:2MUD6ZC4 submitted 2019-08-18 cs.HC cs.CY

Alexander Korotin , Nikita Khromov , Anton Stepanov , Andrey Lange , Evgeny Burnaev , Andrey Somov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords eSportsgazeanalysiseyetrackingCounter-Strike:GlobalOffensiveplayerskillassessmentsensingplatformmouseandkeyboardinputwearablesensors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a sensing platform that synchronizes eye tracking, heart-rate monitoring, mouse and keyboard logging, and in-game demo recording can gather the heterogeneous data needed to study eSports athletes in real matches. In a case study with fifteen Counter-Strike: Global Offensive players, the platform separates five professionals from ten amateurs using gaze alone: professionals keep their gaze at the screen center, near the aiming crosshair, while amateurs look more often at the game radar. The same data show that amateurs frequently press the forward key and the shoot button at the same time, an action the paper notes reduces shooting accuracy in the game engine, while professionals more often use left-right movement keys. If these behavioral differences hold, the platform offers a quantitative basis for scouting and assessing players rather than relying only on game statistics or a coach's experience.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the zone-occupancy distribution: a vector of nine probabilities, one per screen zone, computed from raw gaze coordinates by k-center clustering with nine hand-selected cluster centers (crosshair, radar, health/armor panel, weapon/ammo panel, kill/log, timer/player panel, and three zones around the crosshair). Gaze gaps shorter than 0.1 seconds are linearly interpolated, and the frequency of gaze in each zone is counted over a 15-second rolling window. Principal component analysis is applied to these distributions; its first two components are nearly sparse, with the dominant coordinate of the first component being the crosshair zone and that of the second being the radar zone, which is what makes the professional-amateur separation interpretable. The supporting input analysis uses two simple features: time spent pressing A or D, and time spent pressing W and MOUSE1 together.

What would settle it

Run the same gaze pipeline on a round with a scripted enemy moving across the screen center: if eye-tracking samples that follow the moving enemy are assigned to the crosshair zone for both professionals and amateurs, then the claimed center-gaze difference may reflect target tracking rather than crosshair discipline, and the professional-amateur separation would need re-testing with the moving-target samples excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that professional and amateur CS:GO players can be distinguished by where they look and how they press keys, measured in a controlled Retake-mode scenario. The eye-tracker data are assigned to nine hand-chosen screen zones by k-center clustering, and the fraction of time spent in each zone is computed over 15-second windows; PCA on these zone-occupancy vectors shows a clear split between the two groups. The first principal component is dominated by the aiming-crosshair zone, and the second by the radar zone, leading the paper to conclude that professionals spend more time looking at the screen center and less time looking at the radar than amateurs. The input analysis adds that professionals use the left and right movement keys more often, whereas amateurs more often combine forward movement with shooting, which the game engine penalizes. The paper presents these as simple rules that can explain the skill difference observed in the data.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that each raw gaze position is mainly caused by one of the fixed on-screen zones, so gaze at moving enemies, empty space, or off-screen areas gets assigned to the nearest hand-picked cluster center; if that mapping is wrong, the center-versus-radar conclusion could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A scout or coach could use gaze-zone occupancy, especially the crosshair-versus-radar balance, as a quantitative indicator of FPS player experience in similar scenarios.
  • The W+MOUSE1 simultaneous-press rate gives a second, independent behavioral marker that does not require an eye tracker.
  • The same sensor stack can be applied to other game disciplines and to larger groups to test whether the center-gaze rule generalizes beyond CS:GO Retake.
  • Amateur players could be given targeted feedback to reduce simultaneous run-and-shoot and to keep gaze near the crosshair, based directly on the observed professional pattern.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the crosshair-versus-radar axis is the main separator, a cheaper deployment could use a coarse per-second zone estimator from a low-frequency eye tracker and still reproduce the skill split.
  • The fixed-zone model treats gaze as caused by static UI areas; mapping gaze onto 3D game-world objects (enemies, moving targets) would test whether center gaze is crosshair fixation or target tracking.
  • The two behavioral rules (center gaze, no run-and-shoot) could be combined into a single low-dimensional skill score and validated against external performance metrics such as round win rate or kill-death ratio.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a sensing platform for collecting heterogeneous data from eSports athletes, integrating an eye tracker, a heart-rate monitor, a mouse/keyboard logger, and CS:GO telemetry, and demonstrates it in a case study with 5 professional and 10 amateur players in the CS:GO Retake mode. The main analytical claims are that professional athletes spend more time looking at the screen center and less time looking at the radar than amateurs (Section V.A, Figures 6 and 7), and that professionals use strafe keys (A/D) more while amateurs combine forward movement (W) with shooting (MOUSE1) (Section V.B, Figures 8 and 9). The platform description and data collection methodology are plausible, but the comparative claims rest on visual inspection of PCA projections and unvalidated gaze-to-UI-zone assignments, with no inferential statistics reported.

Significance. If the platform and the gaze/input differences were rigorously established, this would be a useful contribution to eSports analytics and pervasive sensing: the system enables synchronized multimodal data collection from real professional athletes in a controlled scenario, and the proposed gaze-zone attribution approach could support coach feedback and scouting. The paper also includes a reproducible experimental protocol and a concrete dataset description. However, the analytical results are preliminary: the central comparative claims currently lack statistical support, and the key assumption that gaze coordinates are caused by fixed UI zones is not validated. The platform itself appears functional, so the contribution is primarily the sensing infrastructure and the case-study setup, not yet a demonstrated behavioral rule.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.A, Figure 6] The claim that professional athletes and amateur players are 'clearly' separated by the first two principal components is based entirely on visual inspection of a PCA projection of per-window gaze-zone distributions, with no statistical test, confidence intervals, or effect sizes. With only 5 professionals and 10 amateurs, and with multiple rolling windows per player (a repeated-measures structure), the apparent separation could be driven by individual differences or by non-independence of the windows. Please provide a formal test comparing the distributions of Zone 1 and Zone 2 occupancy between the two groups, for example a mixed-effects model with participant as a random effect, a permutation test that respects subject-level clustering, or a Mann-Whitney U test on per-player averages, and report effect sizes.
  2. [Section V.A, Table 4 and assumption before Eq. (1)] The gaze-to-zone mapping assumes that 'the gaze positions (x,y) are mainly caused by the specific zone of interest shown on the screen during the game,' but this assumption is not validated. The fixed nine cluster centers define a Voronoi-like partition of the 1920x1080 screen, so gaze at moving targets, empty world regions, or the weapon model will be assigned to the nearest UI-zone center (e.g., lower-left gaze is counted as radar, center gaze as crosshair). If professionals and amateurs differ in map position, round phase, or engagement distance, the reported center-versus-radar difference could reflect game-state differences rather than skill. Please validate the zone assignment (e.g., by comparing automated labels to manual annotation of gaze videos) or at minimum analyze the sensitivity of the conclusions to the choice of cluster centers and to the number of clusters k.
  3. [Section V.B, Figures 8 and 9] The mouse and keyboard analysis is qualitative: the claims that professionals 'often use' A/D keys and that amateurs 'often combine' W with MOUSE1 are supported only by visual inspection of two kernel-density plots, with no numerical summaries, no statistical tests, and no effect sizes. Please report quantitative features (e.g., fraction of time holding A/D, frequency or duration of W+MOUSE1 co-occurrence) for each group and test the group difference, ideally with the same repeated-measures care as recommended for the gaze data.
  4. [Section VI (Conclusion)] The conclusion states that 'Analysis of eSports data requires the development of specialized machine learning methods' and lists many open data-processing challenges, which is in tension with the strong comparative conclusions drawn earlier in Section V.A and V.B. Please either soften the claims (e.g., present the gaze and input results as exploratory) or provide the additional statistical evidence needed to support them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A vs Section V.A] The sampling rate of the eye tracker is stated as 30 times per second in Section III.A but as 60 Hz in Section V.A; please reconcile these values and verify that the interpolation gap threshold of '6 missing consequent observations maximum' matches the actual sampling rate (0.1 s at 60 Hz, but 0.2 s at 30 Hz).
  2. [Section IV.B vs Section V.A] The game scenario in Section IV.B describes 12 rounds, while Section V.A refers to '10 repeated rounds'; please clarify the actual number of rounds used in the analysis.
  3. [Section V.A, Table 4] Zones 4, 6, and 8 are described as 'Right Area of Sight,' 'Left Area of Sight,' and 'Bottom Area of Sight' but are not visible in Figure 3; please explain the rationale for their placement and how they relate to the UI elements or to gameplay.
  4. [Section V.A, Figure 6] The caption says 'principle components' but the correct term is 'principal components'; similarly, 'prepossessed' in Section V.A should be 'preprocessed.'
  5. [Section V.A, Figures 8 and 9] The axes of the KDE plots in Figures 8 and 9 are not clearly labeled in the figure captions; please specify what quantity is plotted on each axis (e.g., time in seconds, probability density).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gaze conclusions are measured cluster-occupancy statistics with a priori UI-defined zones; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain is load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central comparative claim is that professional athletes look more at the screen center and less at the radar than amateurs (Section V.A). This is derived by assigning raw gaze coordinates to nine fixed UI-zone cluster centers (Table 4) and computing zone-occupancy probabilities, then projecting the resulting distributions with PCA. No parameter needed for the conclusion is fitted to the outcome: the nine cluster centers are defined a priori from the CS:GO interface geometry, the Euclidean nearest-center assignment is deterministic, and the PCA is descriptive rather than a generative model with fitted coefficients. The conclusion 'professionals spend more time looking at the screen center' is simply a reading of the measured occupancy of the center zone, not a construction that presupposes the conclusion. The assumption that gaze positions are 'mainly caused by the specific zone of interest shown on the screen' is an untested modeling assumption, but it is not circular: it does not encode the professional-versus-amateur difference. The input-device analysis (Section V.B) compares raw key/mouse timing distributions and is similarly empirical. Self-citations in the reference list (e.g., [2,9,17,20,21,28,31]) appear only in the future-work discussion about generic preprocessing and classification methods and do not carry the paper's central claims. The absence of inferential statistics and effect sizes is a correctness/statistical weakness, not a circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis depends on manually selected cluster parameters and several domain assumptions about how gaze maps to UI zones and how the chosen scenario represents skill. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of gaze clusters k = 9
    Manually chosen before clustering; determines the number of gaze zones and therefore shapes all downstream probability distributions.
  • Gaze cluster center coordinates = Nine (x,y) pairs listed in Table 4
    Hand-selected to coincide with CS:GO UI elements; these centers define the mapping from raw gaze positions to zone categories, so they directly influence the PCA conclusions.
  • Rolling window length = 15 seconds
    Used to compute time-varying gaze-zone probabilities; changing it alters the smoothness of the distributions that feed into PCA.
  • Interpolation gap threshold = 0.1 seconds
    Only gaze gaps shorter than this threshold are interpolated; affects how the 4% missing gaze data are treated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaze positions are mainly caused by the specific zone of interest shown on the screen during the game.
    Stated in Section V.A before the clustering; the entire zone-based analysis relies on this mapping.
  • domain assumption The nine manually defined gaze zones correspond to the functionally important regions of the CS:GO interface.
    The authors define cluster centers at UI panels, but no validation shows that gaze near these coordinates is actually driven by those UI elements.
  • domain assumption The Retake scenario with 10 rounds per player is representative of broader competitive CS:GO performance.
    All pro-amateur comparisons are computed from this single custom scenario, so results may not generalize to other maps or game modes.
  • standard math Standard PCA and k-center clustering are appropriate descriptions of the gaze distribution data.
    The paper applies these methods without justifying their suitability beyond prior citations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Understanding of eSports Athletes' Potentialities: The Sensing System for Data Collection and Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MUD6ZC4

@misc{pith2026190806403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Understanding of eSports Athletes' Potentialities: The Sensing System for Data Collection and Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MUD6ZC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06403}
}
read the original abstract

eSports is a developing multidisciplinary research area. At present, there is a lack of relevant data collected from real eSports athletes and lack of platforms which could be used for the data collection and further analysis. In this paper, we present a sensing system for enabling the data collection from professional athletes. Also, we report on the case study about collecting and analyzing the gaze data from Monolith professional eSports team specializing in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO) discipline. We perform a comparative study on assessing the gaze of amateur players and professional athletes. The results of our work are vital for ensuring eSports data collection and the following analysis in the scope of scouting or assessing the eSports players and athletes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Block diagram of data collection system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental testbed. The data from all the sources are stored on the PC except for the ’Demo’ files which are recorded on a game server and then are copied to the PC right after each game session. We record the in-game data during the game using the HLTV bot. IV. METHODOLOGY A. Objectives It is essential for a coach and for every player interested in improving his skills to perform the analysis of the performance d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Elements of the user interface in CS:GO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gaze positions (randomly shown 3000 of them) and the clusters shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gaze heatmaps for the professional athletes and amateur players (3000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the usage of keys A or D by amateur players and professional athletes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of the simultaneous usage of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. G. Anderson, A. M. Tsaasan, J. Reitman, J. S. Lee, M. Wu, H. Steel, T. Turner, and C. Steinkuehler. Understanding esports as a stem career ready curriculum in the wild. In 2018 10th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS- Games), pages 1–6, Sept 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Artemov and E

    A. Artemov and E. Burnaev. Ensembles of detectors for online detection of transient changes. In Proc. SPIE , volume 9875, pages 9875 – 9875 – 5, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    M. Aung, V . Bonometti, A. Drachen, P. Cowling, A. V . Kokkinakis, C. Yoder, and A. Wade. Predicting skill learning in a large, longitudinal moba dataset. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), pages 1–7, Aug 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Consciousness and emotion: attentive vs

    Michela Balconi. Consciousness and emotion: attentive vs. pre-attentive elaboration of face processing. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning , pages 774–

    work page

  5. [5]

    Baranov, D

    A. Baranov, D. Spirjakin, S. Akbari, A. Somov, and R. Passerone. Poco: ’perpetual’ operation of co wireless sensor node with hybrid power supply. Sensors and Actuators, A: Physical , 238:112–121, 2016. cited By 15

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Eye tracking the user experience: A practical guide to research

    Aga Bojko. Eye tracking the user experience: A practical guide to research. Rosenfeld Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation

    Margaret M Bradley, Laura Miccoli, Miguel A Escrig, and Peter J Lang. The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology, 45(4):602–607, 2008. 1http://ub1que.ru

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Buckley, K

    D. Buckley, K. Chen, and J. Knowles. Predicting skill from gameplay input to a first-person shooter. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Intell. Games (CIG13) , pages 105–112, Aug. 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Burnaev, P

    E. Burnaev, P. Erofeev, and A. Papanov. Influence of resampling on accuracy of imbalanced classification. In Proc. SPIE, volume 9875, pages 9875–9875–5, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    E. Cambria. Affective computing and sentiment analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems , 31(2):102–107, Mar 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Choi and M

    G. Choi and M. Kim. Eye gaze information and game level design according to fps gameplay beats. Journal of Information and Communication Convergence Engineer- ing, 16:189–196, 01 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Eye-movement pattern by playing experience in combat system of fps game

    GyuHyeok Choi and Mijin Kim. Eye-movement pattern by playing experience in combat system of fps game. pages 52–56, 06 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Davies and S

    N. Davies and S. Clinch. Pervasive data science. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 16(3):50–58, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Game analytics

    Magy Seif El-Nasr, Anders Drachen, and Alessandro Canossa. Game analytics. Springer, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Affective computing in games

    Benjamin Guthier, Ralf D ¨orner, and Hector P Martinez. Affective computing in games. In Entertainment Com- puting and Serious Games , pages 402–441. Springer, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Icarus: Source generator based real-time recognition of speech in noisy stressful and lombard effect environments

    John HL Hansen and Douglas A Cairns. Icarus: Source generator based real-time recognition of speech in noisy stressful and lombard effect environments. Speech Com- munication, 16(4):391–422, 1995

    1995

  9. [17]

    Ishimtsev, A

    V . Ishimtsev, A. Bernstein, E. Burnaev, and I. Nazarov. Conformal k-nn anomaly detector for univariate data streams. In Alex Gammerman, Vladimir V ovk, Zhiyuan Luo, and Harris Papadopoulos, editors, Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Conformal and Probabilistic Pre- diction...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Principal component analysis

    Ian Jolliffe. Principal component analysis. In Interna- tional encyclopedia of statistical science , pages 1094–

  11. [19]

    Iden- tifying game players with mouse biometrics

    Ryan Kaminsky, Miro Enev, and Erik Andersen. Iden- tifying game players with mouse biometrics. University of Washington, Tech. Rep, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Kuleshov, A

    A. Kuleshov, A. Bernstein, and E. Burnaev. Kernel regression on manifold valued data. In Proceedings of IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, pages 120–129, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Kuleshov, A

    A. Kuleshov, A. Bernstein, and E. Burnaev. Manifold learning regression with non-stationary kernels. In Luca Pancioni, Friedhelm Schwenker, and Edmondo Trentin, editors, Artificial Neural Networks in Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 152–164, Cham, 2018. Springer International Publishing

    2018

  14. [22]

    Methods for comparing scanpaths and saliency maps: strengths and weaknesses

    Olivier Le Meur and Thierry Baccino. Methods for comparing scanpaths and saliency maps: strengths and weaknesses. Behavior research methods, 45(1):251–266, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Applying metrics driven development to mmo costs and risks

    Larry Mellon. Applying metrics driven development to mmo costs and risks. Versant Corporation, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges

    Daniele Miorandi, Sabrina Sicari, Francesco De Pelle- grini, and Imrich Chlamtac. Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks , 10(7):1497 – 1516, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Global esports market report, 2018

    Newzoo. Global esports market report, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    An efficient real-time emotion detection using camera and facial landmarks

    Binh T Nguyen, Minh H Trinh, Tan V Phan, and Hien D Nguyen. An efficient real-time emotion detection using camera and facial landmarks. In Information Science and Technology (ICIST), 2017 Seventh International Confer- ence on, pages 251–255. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Adap- tive system to learn and recognize emotional state of mind

    Neeru Rathee, Ashutosh Vaish, and Sagar Gupta. Adap- tive system to learn and recognize emotional state of mind. In Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), 2016 International Conference on , pages 32–

    2016

  20. [28]

    Safin and E

    A. Safin and E. Burnaev. Conformal kernel expected similarity for anomaly detection in time-series data. Advances in Systems Science and Applications, 17(3):22– 33, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Sasidharan, A

    S. Sasidharan, A. Somov, A.R. Biswas, and R. Giaffreda. Cognitive management framework for internet of things:- a prototype implementation. pages 538–543, 2014. cited By 12

    2014

  22. [30]

    M. H. Schiller, G. Wallner, C. Schinnerl, A. Monte Calvo, J. Pirker, R. Sifa, and A. Drachen. Inside the group: Investigating social structures in player groups and their influence on activity. IEEE Transactions on Games , pages 1–1, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Smolyakov, A

    D. Smolyakov, A. Korotin, P. Erofeev, A. Papanov, and E. Burnaev. Meta-learning for resampling recommen- dation systems. In Proc. SPIE 11041, Eleventh Inter- national Conference on Machine Vision (ICMV 2018), 110411S (15 March 2019) , 2019

    2018

  24. [32]

    Review of iot applications in agro-industrial and environmental fields

    Jess Martn Talavera, Luis Eduardo Tobn, Jairo Alejandro Gmez, Mara Alejandra Culman, Juan Manuel Aranda, Diana Teresa Parra, Luis Alfredo Quiroz, Adolfo Hoyos, and Luis Ernesto Garreta. Review of iot applications in agro-industrial and environmental fields. Computers and Electr...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Learning policies for first person shooter games using inverse reinforcement learning

    Bulent Tastan and Gita Reese Sukthankar. Learning policies for first person shooter games using inverse reinforcement learning. In AIIDE, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Princi- pal component analysis

    Svante Wold, Kim Esbensen, and Paul Geladi. Princi- pal component analysis. Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 2(1-3):37–52, 1987

    1987

  27. [35]

    Pupillary response based cognitive workload measurement under luminance changes

    Jie Xu, Yang Wang, Fang Chen, and Eric Choi. Pupillary response based cognitive workload measurement under luminance changes. In IFIP Conference on Human- Computer Interaction, pages 178–185. Springer, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Improving aviation safety using synthetic vision system integrated with eye- tracking devices

    Mingliang Xu, Yibo Guo, Bailin Yang, Wei Chen, Pei Lv, Liwei Fan, and Bin Zhou. Improving aviation safety using synthetic vision system integrated with eye- tracking devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02543, 2018

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.