Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Gaze Prediction as a Function of Eye Movement Type and Individual Differences

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Per-subject oculomotor traits—fixation noise and saccade velocity—predict how hard a subject's gaze is to predict across three very different models.

desk verdict Honest, small-scope study of per-subject gaze prediction; the saccade-velocity claim needs an amplitude control before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00597 v2 pith:RFOQPFBD submitted 2024-12-31 cs.HC cs.LG

Kateryna Melnyk , Lee Friedman , Dmytro Katrychuk , Oleg Komogortsev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.LG
keywords eyemovementpredictionindividualdifferencesfixationnoisesaccadevelocityLSTMtransformeroculomotorplantmathematicalmodelfoveatedrendering
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 asks why the same gaze-prediction model works well for some people and poorly for others. Analysing a large eye-tracking dataset with three structurally different predictors—an LSTM, a transformer, and a Kalman-filtered oculomotor plant model—the paper finds that per-subject prediction errors vary substantially for every model. The central result is that two measurable oculomotor traits track this variation: subjects with noisier fixations have worse fixation prediction, and subjects with faster saccades have worse saccade prediction. If correct, this means a subject's eye-movement style, not just the model's architecture, sets the practical accuracy ceiling for gaze prediction, which matters for latency-sensitive foveated rendering in virtual reality.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by per-subject profiles of median prediction error, computed separately for fixations, large saccades, and small saccades, and correlated against a small curated set of 35 radial oculomotor features plus a fixation velocity-noise threshold. The load-bearing features are Fixation Noise Threshold—the 90th percentile of radial velocity during fixations, from the MNH event-classification work—and the saccade velocity measures PkVelDurRatioRMd and MnVelRMd, which are near-duplicates. Spearman correlations with Bonferroni correction link these features to median errors for all three models. A Kendall Coefficient of Concordance appendix quantifies how similarly the models rank subjects, showing high agreement for fixations and small saccades.

What would settle it

Recompute Table 2 with per-subject medians replaced by bootstrapped medians, or with a minimum sample count per subject; if the Spearman correlations between fixation noise or saccade velocity and median error fall to near zero, the reported association was driven by noisy median estimates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that individual oculomotor characteristics are associated with gaze prediction performance in a consistent, model-independent way. Using 322 subjects from the GazeBase random-saccade task and a 40 ms prediction interval, the authors show that for fixations the median prediction error per subject correlates strongly with a Fixation Noise Threshold (Spearman $r_s$ between 0.79 and 0.93 across the three models); the noisier a subject's fixations, the poorer the prediction. For large saccades, two nearly interchangeable velocity measures—peak velocity per sample and mean velocity per saccade—correlate with median error ($r_s$ up to 0.75), so faster saccades predict worse performance. The same oculomotor measures succeed despite the models being fundamentally different, and the subject profiles for fixations and small saccades agree strongly across models, while large-saccade profiles depend more on the model.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a single session's median prediction error for each subject is a stable estimate of that subject's true performance, but it does not report sample counts per subject or confidence intervals for those medians.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gaze prediction studies should report inter-subject variation, not just aggregate error, because average performance can hide subjects for whom foveated rendering fails.
  • Oculomotor features such as fixation noise and saccade velocity can flag difficult-to-predict subjects before or during use.
  • Future models could take fixation-noise and saccade-velocity measures as inputs, or be tuned to reduce subject-to-subject variation.
  • Prediction error ordering—fixations best, then CEP intervals, small saccades, and large saccades worst—should hold across prediction intervals, with longer intervals increasing error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the correlations generalize, a quick calibration could estimate a user's fixation noise and saccade velocity and set rendering budgets or prediction expectations per subject.
  • The same features might predict error on lower-quality VR eye-trackers, but noisier signals could weaken or strengthen the correlations; testing on such data would be a direct extension.
  • Because all three models show similar associations, the effect may be inherent to the oculomotor signal itself, suggesting that no architecture change alone will fix prediction for high-velocity or high-noise subjects.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes individual differences in gaze prediction performance using three fundamentally different models (LSTM, TST, and an oculomotor plant model with Kalman filtering, OPKF) on the GazeBase random saccades dataset. It evaluates prediction error at a 40 ms prediction interval across fixation, large saccades, small saccades, and the post-saccadic critical evaluation period (CEP). The paper reports subject-to-subject variation in median prediction errors and then correlates per-subject oculomotor features with these errors. The central findings are that a fixation noise threshold is associated with poorer fixation prediction and that saccade velocity measures are associated with poorer large-saccade prediction, with the correlations consistent across all three models after Bonferroni correction.

Significance. If the findings hold, they provide a practical route to anticipating which subjects will be hard to predict for gaze-contingent rendering and other real-time eye-tracking applications, and they do so across fundamentally different model architectures. The study's strengths include the use of three distinct models, a relatively large test set of 67 subjects, and the application of Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The cross-model consistency of the correlations is encouraging. However, the saccade-velocity result is currently threatened by a plausible amplitude confound, and the stability of the subject-level medians is not documented. These issues are addressable and should be fixed before the central claim is accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [4.3, Table 2] The correlations between saccade-velocity features (PkVelDurRatioRMd, MnVelRMd) and median large-saccade prediction error do not control for saccade amplitude. Figure 2a shows that prediction error increases with saccade amplitude for all three models, and the main-sequence relationship implies that the velocity features also scale with amplitude. If subjects differ in the amplitude distribution of saccades classified as large, the reported rs values could reflect amplitude differences rather than a per-subject velocity trait. The authors should report the correlation between the velocity features and amplitude, a partial correlation controlling for amplitude, or an amplitude-matched analysis to support the velocity claim.
  2. [4.2, Table 1, Figure 3] The subject-level median errors used in the correlation analysis are computed without reporting the number of fixation or saccade samples per subject or confidence intervals for the medians. If some subjects contributed very few usable samples, their medians would be noisy, which could inflate or distort the Spearman correlations in Table 2. Please provide per-subject sample counts, bootstrap confidence intervals, or a minimum-sample inclusion threshold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [4.3.1] The definition of PkVelDurRatioRMd contains typographical errors ('P kV elDurRatioRM dis' and inconsistent capitalization); please correct these and clarify the units, since peak velocity divided by number of samples is not 'per millisecond' unless the sampling rate is explicitly stated.
  2. [5] In the Discussion, 'silency maps' should be 'saliency maps'.
  3. [3.4] The statement that code and data will be made available via a link 'to be provided in the future' should be replaced with an actual link or a clear statement of availability upon publication, as it is important for reproducibility.
  4. [4.3] The paper reports only the significant correlations and states that no significant correlations were found for small saccades. For transparency, please include the full set of tested correlations (or a supplement) so readers can assess the selective-reporting risk, and specify the exact number of tests used in the Bonferroni correction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported findings are empirical correlations, not derivations from fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive gaze prediction errors from first principles; it reports subject-level correlations between oculomotor features and median prediction errors. The fixation-noise threshold is computed from the velocity distribution of fixation samples (Section 4.3), and the outcome is the median prediction error on those samples. This raises an interpretability caveat, but it is not a self-definitional reduction: no parameter is fitted to the error values, and the association is statistically observed across 67 subjects rather than forced by construction. The saccade-velocity findings (Table 2, PkVelDurRatioRMd and MnVelRMd) are similarly empirical correlations with large-saccade errors and do not reduce to the features themselves. Self-citations, such as [42] for the MNH classification/FixNoiseThr measure and [38] for the OPKF model, are methodological rather than load-bearing: they provide algorithms and model definitions, not a uniqueness theorem or a premise that already contains the paper's conclusions. The central claims are checkable against the Gazebase data and the described model implementations, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its analysis relies on established models and feature sets. The most notable free choices are the 90th percentile for fixation noise, the undefined large/small saccade threshold, and the prediction interval selection. The core statistical claims rest on the reliability of per-subject error summaries and the validity of the event classification.

free parameters (3)
  • Fixation noise threshold percentile = 90th percentile (chosen by hand)
    The FixNoiseThr feature is defined as the 90th percentile of radial velocity during fixations. This percentile choice is arbitrary and directly determines the feature that produces the top correlation with fixation prediction error.
  • Saccade amplitude split for large vs small saccades = not stated in the paper
    The analysis separates large and small saccades and reports different correlation outcomes, but the amplitude threshold is not defined. Without this value, the exact definition of the two saccade categories is not reproducible.
  • Prediction intervals evaluated = 25, 40, and 60 ms
    The study evaluates three prediction intervals and selects 40 ms for the main text. These are analysis choices that affect the error magnitudes, though the authors report similar correlations across intervals.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Spearman correlation is an appropriate measure of association for non-normal oculomotor data.
    Invoked in Section 4.3 when computing correlations between oculomotor features and median prediction errors.
  • domain assumption The GazeBase RAN (random saccades) session is representative of eye movements relevant to gaze prediction.
    The study uses only Round 1, Session 1 of the RAN task from GazeBase, with undergraduate students. This limits generalizability to other tasks, devices, and populations.
  • domain assumption The MNH event classifier correctly segments fixations and saccades.
    Section 3.3 relies on an improved MNH classifier to label eye-movement events. If the classifier mislabels events, the per-type error profiles and the oculomotor features (computed within those labels) would be distorted.
  • domain assumption The selected 35-feature subset from Rigas et al. covers the relevant oculomotor variation.
    Section 4.3 states that the authors chose only features concerning fixations and saccades with radial medians, leaving 35 features. Unmeasured factors, such as head movements or cognitive state, could confound the correlations.
  • ad hoc to paper The reported significant correlations are not artifacts of selective reporting.
    Only the best feature per model is shown in Table 2, and small-saccade correlations are omitted entirely. The reader must trust that the a priori subset and the significance thresholds justify this selection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaze Prediction as a Function of Eye Movement Type and Individual Differences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFOQPFBD

@misc{pith2026250100597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaze Prediction as a Function of Eye Movement Type and Individual Differences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFOQPFBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00597}
}
read the original abstract

Eye movement prediction is a promising area of research with the potential to improve performance and the user experience of systems based on eye-tracking technology. In this study, we analyze individual differences in gaze prediction performance. We use three fundamentally different models within the analysis: the lightweight Long Short-Term Memory network (LSTM), the transformer-based network for multivariate time series representation learning (TST), and the Oculomotor Plant Mathematical Model wrapped in the Kalman Filter framework (OPKF). Each solution was assessed on different eye-movement types. We show important subject-to-subject variation for all models and eye-movement types. We found that fixation noise is associated with poorer gaze prediction in fixation. For saccades, higher velocities are associated with poorer gaze prediction performance. We think these individual differences are important and propose that future research should report statistics related to inter-subject variation. We also propose that future models should be designed to reduce subject-to-subject variation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00597 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Subject Profiles in Gaze Prediction Error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. CDF Plots Across All Eye-Movement Events and Fixations Only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gaze Prediction Error as a Function of Saccade Size Across PIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gaze Prediction Errors During Saccade Progression Across PIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaze Prediction Errors During First 50 ms of CEP Across PIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Subject Profiles in Gaze Prediction Error Per Fixation Across PIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Subject Profiles in Gaze Prediction Error Per Large Saccades Across PIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Subject Profiles in Gaze Prediction Error Per Small Saccades Across PIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Mind Your Vision: Multimodal Estimation of Refractive Disorders Using Electrooculography and Eye Tracking

    eess.IV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Multimodal EOG and eye-tracking LSTM classifies simulated refractive power with 96.2 percent accuracy within a person, but only 8.9 percent across people, near chance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A review on virtual reality skill training applications

    Biao Xie, Huimin Liu, Rawan Alghofaili, Yongqi Zhang, Yeling Jiang, Flavio Destri Lobo, Changyang Li, Wanwan Li, Haikun Huang, Mesut Akdere, et al. A review on virtual reality skill training applications. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2:645153, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    User experiences of virtual reality technologies for healthcare in learning: an integrative review

    Henna Mäkinen, Elina Haavisto, Sara Havola, and Jaana-Maija Koivisto. User experiences of virtual reality technologies for healthcare in learning: an integrative review. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(1):1–17, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives

    Laura Freina and Michela Ott. A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. In The international scientific conference elearning and software for education, pages 10–1007, 04 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Rendering optimizations for virtual reality using eye-tracking

    Sage L Matthews, Alvaro Uribe-Quevedo, and Alexander Theodorou. Rendering optimizations for virtual reality using eye-tracking. In 2020 22nd symposium on virtual and augmented reality (SVR), pages 398–405. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Latency requirements for foveated rendering in virtual reality

    Rachel Albert, Anjul Patney, David Luebke, and Joohwan Kim. Latency requirements for foveated rendering in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 14(4):1–13, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Latency and cybersickness: Impact, causes, and measures

    Jan-Philipp Stauffert, Florian Niebling, and Marc Erich Latoschik. Latency and cybersickness: Impact, causes, and measures. a review. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1:582204, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A comparison of eye tracking latencies among several commercial head-mounted displays

    Niklas Stein, Diederick C Niehorster, Tamara Watson, Frank Steinicke, Katharina Rifai, Siegfried Wahl, and Markus Lappe. A comparison of eye tracking latencies among several commercial head-mounted displays. i-Perception, 12(1):2041669520983338, 2021. 7 GAZE PREDICTION AS A FUNCTION OF EYE MOVEMENT TYPE AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Dgaze: Cnn-based gaze prediction in dynamic scenes

    Zhiming Hu, Sheng Li, Congyi Zhang, Kangrui Yi, Guoping Wang, and Dinesh Manocha. Dgaze: Cnn-based gaze prediction in dynamic scenes. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 26(5):1902–1911, 2020

    work page 1902

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Fixationnet: Forecasting eye fixations in task- oriented virtual environments

    Zhiming Hu, Andreas Bulling, Sheng Li, and Guoping Wang. Fixationnet: Forecasting eye fixations in task- oriented virtual environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(5):2681–2690, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Real-time gaze prediction in virtual reality

    Gazi Karam Illahi, Matti Siekkinen, Teemu Kämäräinen, and Antti Ylä-Jääski. Real-time gaze prediction in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 14th international workshop on immersive mixed and virtual environment systems, pages 12–18, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Small head movements increase and colour noise in data from five video-based p–cr eye trackers

    Kenneth Holmqvist, Saga Lee Örbom, and Raimondas Zemblys. Small head movements increase and colour noise in data from five video-based p–cr eye trackers. Behavior Research Methods, 54(2):845–863, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Connecting gaze, scene, and attention: Generalized attention estimation via joint modeling of gaze and scene saliency

    Eunji Chong, Nataniel Ruiz, Yongxin Wang, Yun Zhang, Agata Rozga, and James M Rehg. Connecting gaze, scene, and attention: Generalized attention estimation via joint modeling of gaze and scene saliency. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Sam: Pushing the limits of saliency prediction models

    Marcella Cornia, Lorenzo Baraldi, Giuseppe Serra, and Rita Cucchiara. Sam: Pushing the limits of saliency prediction models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 1890–1892, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Visual reinforcement shapes eye movements in visual search

    Céline Paeye, Alexander C Schütz, and Karl R Gegenfurtner. Visual reinforcement shapes eye movements in visual search. Journal of vision, 16(10):15–15, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Saccade landing position prediction for gaze-contingent rendering

    Elena Arabadzhiyska, Okan Tarhan Tursun, Karol Myszkowski, Hans-Peter Seidel, and Piotr Didyk. Saccade landing position prediction for gaze-contingent rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 36(4):1–12, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Eye movement prediction by kalman filter with integrated linear horizontal oculomotor plant mechanical model

    Oleg V Komogortsev and Javed I Khan. Eye movement prediction by kalman filter with integrated linear horizontal oculomotor plant mechanical model. In Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, pages 229–236, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Eye movement prediction by oculomotor plant kalman filter with brainstem control

    Oleg V Komogortsev and Javed I Khan. Eye movement prediction by oculomotor plant kalman filter with brainstem control. Journal of Control Theory and Applications, 7:14–22, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Saccade landing point prediction: A novel approach based on recurrent neural networks

    Aythami Morales, Francisco M Costela, Ruben Tolosana, and Russell L Woods. Saccade landing point prediction: A novel approach based on recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Machine Learning Technologies, pages 1–5, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    A shift-based data augmentation strategy for improving saccade landing point prediction

    Henry Griffith and Oleg Komogortsev. A shift-based data augmentation strategy for improving saccade landing point prediction. In ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, pages 1–6, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Saccade landing point prediction based on fine-grained learning method

    Aythami Morales, Francisco M Costela, and Russell L Woods. Saccade landing point prediction based on fine-grained learning method. IEEE Access, 9:52474–52484, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Gazetransformer: Gaze forecasting for virtual reality using transformer networks

    Tim Rolff, H Matthias Harms, Frank Steinicke, and Simone Frintrop. Gazetransformer: Gaze forecasting for virtual reality using transformer networks. In DAGM German Conference on Pattern Recognition, pages 577–593. Springer, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Sgaze: A data-driven eye-head coordination model for realtime gaze prediction

    Zhiming Hu, Congyi Zhang, Sheng Li, Guoping Wang, and Dinesh Manocha. Sgaze: A data-driven eye-head coordination model for realtime gaze prediction. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , 25(5):2002–2010, 2019

    2002

  15. [23]

    Gaze analysis and prediction in virtual reality

    Zhiming Hu. Gaze analysis and prediction in virtual reality. In 2020 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW), pages 543–544. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Transformers in time series: A survey

    Qingsong Wen, Tian Zhou, Chaoli Zhang, Weiqi Chen, Ziqing Ma, Junchi Yan, and Liang Sun. Transformers in time series: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07125, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deep learning based eye gaze estimation and prediction

    Pier Luigi Mazzeo, Dilan D’Amico, Paolo Spagnolo, and Cosimo Distante. Deep learning based eye gaze estimation and prediction. In 2021 6th International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Medirl: Predicting the visual attention of drivers via maximum entropy deep inverse reinforcement learning

    Sonia Baee, Erfan Pakdamanian, Inki Kim, Lu Feng, Vicente Ordonez, and Laura Barnes. Medirl: Predicting the visual attention of drivers via maximum entropy deep inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 13...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Predicting goal-directed human attention using inverse reinforcement learning

    Zhibo Yang, Lihan Huang, Yupei Chen, Zijun Wei, Seoyoung Ahn, Gregory Zelinsky, Dimitris Samaras, and Minh Hoai. Predicting goal-directed human attention using inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Improving driver gaze prediction with reinforced attention

    Kai Lv, Hao Sheng, Zhang Xiong, Wei Li, and Liang Zheng. Improving driver gaze prediction with reinforced attention. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 23:4198–4207, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    A transformer- based model for the prediction of human gaze behavior on videos

    Süleyman Özdel, Yao Rong, Berat Mert Albaba, Yen-Ling Kuo, Xi Wang, and Enkelejda Kasneci. A transformer- based model for the prediction of human gaze behavior on videos. In Proceedings of the 2024 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, pages 1–6, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Metrics for time-to-event prediction of gaze events

    Tim Rolff, Niklas Stein, Markus Lappe, Frank Steinicke, and Simone Frintrop. Metrics for time-to-event prediction of gaze events. In NeuRIPS 2022 Workshop on Gaze Meets ML, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Practical perception-based evaluation of gaze prediction for gaze contingent rendering

    Samantha Aziz, Dillon J Lohr, Razvan Stefanescu, and Oleg Komogortsev. Practical perception-based evaluation of gaze prediction for gaze contingent rendering. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 7(ETRA):1–17, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Extraretinal control of saccadic suppression

    Mark R Diamond, John Ross, and Maria C Morrone. Extraretinal control of saccadic suppression. Journal of Neuroscience, 20(9):3449–3455, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    Gazebase, a large-scale, multi-stimulus, longitudinal eye movement dataset

    Henry Griffith, Dillon Lohr, Evgeny Abdulin, and Oleg Komogortsev. Gazebase, a large-scale, multi-stimulus, longitudinal eye movement dataset. Scientific Data, 8(1):184, 07 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    A transformer- based framework for multivariate time series representation learning

    George Zerveas, Srideepika Jayaraman, Dhaval Patel, Anuradha Bhamidipaty, and Carsten Eickhoff. A transformer- based framework for multivariate time series representation learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , KDD ’21,...

    2021

  27. [35]

    tsai - a state-of-the-art deep learning library for time series and sequential data

    Ignacio Oguiza. tsai - a state-of-the-art deep learning library for time series and sequential data. Github, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Development, validation and sensitivity analyses of human eye movement models

    A Terry Bahill. Development, validation and sensitivity analyses of human eye movement models. CRC Critical Reviews in Bioengineering, 4(4):311–355, 1980

    1980

  29. [37]

    Per-subject oculomotor plant mathematical models and the reliability of their parameters

    Kateryna Melnyk, Lee Friedman, Dmytro Katrychuk, and Oleg Komogortsev. Per-subject oculomotor plant mathematical models and the reliability of their parameters. Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 7(2):1–20, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Komogortsev

    Dmytro Katrychuk and Oleg V . Komogortsev. A study on the generalizability of oculomotor plant mathematical model. In 2022 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ETRA ’22, New York, NY , USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery

    2022

  31. [39]

    Estimation of neural inputs and detection of saccades and smooth pursuit eye movements by sparse bayesian learning

    Federico Wadehn, David J Mack, Thilo Weber, and Hans-Andrea Loeliger. Estimation of neural inputs and detection of saccades and smooth pursuit eye movements by sparse bayesian learning. In 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biolog...

    2018

  32. [40]

    Biometric identification via an oculomotor plant mathematical model

    Oleg Komogortsev, Sampath Jayarathna, Cecilia Aragon, and Mechehoul Mahmoud. Biometric identification via an oculomotor plant mathematical model. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research & Applications, ETRA ’10, page 57–60, New York, NY , USA, 01 2010. As...

    2010

  33. [41]

    Biometric authentication via oculomotor plant characteristics

    Oleg Komogortsev, Cecilia Aragon, Alexey Karpov, and Larry Price. Biometric authentication via oculomotor plant characteristics. IEEE/IARP International Conference on Biometrics (ICB), pages 413–420, 04 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    A novel evaluation of two related and two independent algorithms for eye movement classification during reading

    Lee Friedman, Ioannis Rigas, Evgeny Abdulin, and Oleg V Komogortsev. A novel evaluation of two related and two independent algorithms for eye movement classification during reading. Behavior Research Methods, 50:1374–1397, 05 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    What can entropy metrics tell us about the character- istics of ocular fixation trajectories? Plos one, 19(1):e0291823, 2024

    Kateryna Melnyk, Lee Friedman, and Oleg V Komogortsev. What can entropy metrics tell us about the character- istics of ocular fixation trajectories? Plos one, 19(1):e0291823, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Study of an extensive set of eye movement features: Extraction methods and statistical analysis

    Ioannis Rigas, Lee Friedman, and Oleg Komogortsev. Study of an extensive set of eye movement features: Extraction methods and statistical analysis. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 11(1), 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Temporal persistence and inter- correlation of embeddings learned by an end-to-end deep learning eye movement-driven biometrics pipeline, 2024

    Mehedi Hasan Raju, Lee Friedman, Dillon J Lohr, and Oleg V Komogortsev. Temporal persistence and inter- correlation of embeddings learned by an end-to-end deep learning eye movement-driven biometrics pipeline, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Lohr, Lee Friedman, and Oleg V

    Dillon J. Lohr, Lee Friedman, and Oleg V . Komogortsev. Evaluating the data quality of eye tracking signals from a virtual reality system: Case study using smi’s eye-tracking htc vive, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Pytorch lightning, March 2019

    William Falcon. Pytorch lightning, March 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Eye know you too: Toward viable end-to-end eye movement biometrics for user authentication

    Dillon Lohr and Oleg V Komogortsev. Eye know you too: Toward viable end-to-end eye movement biometrics for user authentication. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 17:3151–3164, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data

    GG Landis JRKoch. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1):159–74, 04 1977. 9 GAZE PREDICTION AS A FUNCTION OF EYE MOVEMENT TYPE AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Appendix A Evaluating Gaze Prediction Performance as a Function of Prediction Interv...

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.