Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 66 references

AdSight: Scalable and Accurate Quantification of User Attention in Multi-Slot Sponsored Search

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AdSight claims that mouse cursor trails alone can predict per-slot user attention on search ads to within about 1.7 seconds of true fixation time.

desk verdict Solid Seq2Seq architecture with consistent gains, but the evaluation protocol is under-specified and the headline accuracy numbers may be optimistic until the authors clarify or fix the train/test split and participant grouping. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01451 v2 pith:3S6URVWE submitted 2025-04-30 cs.IR

Mario Villaizán-Vallelado , Matteo Salvatori , Kayhan Latifzadeh , Antonio Penta , Luis A. Leiva , Ioannis Arapakis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords SERPsponsoredsearchuserattentionmousecursortrackingeyeTransformersequence-to-sequenceprediction
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

AdSight predicts how much a user attends to each ad slot on a search results page using only mouse cursor movements and slot metadata. The core claim is that a Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence model can estimate each slot's total fixation time to within an average error of 1.69 seconds, match the true attention ranking with NDCG 96.07, and classify whether a slot category was noticed with an average AUC of 81.24. Because the decoder emits one output per slot, the method adapts to pages with any number of ads. If these accuracies hold beyond the lab, attention measurement could move out of eye-tracker laboratories and into real-world search and advertising systems.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence (Seq2Seq) network. The encoder reads a multivariate time series of cursor events, including normalized coordinates, dwell time, slot category, and sequence index. The decoder ingests slot metadata embeddings, each slot's normalized center coordinates and category, and emits one prediction per slot through a shared MLP readout. Auxiliary slots inserted between the real slots act as additional areas of interest, refining the cursor-position categorisation and contributing an auxiliary loss term that improves the main predictions.

What would settle it

Run the same hyperparameter search inside an outer cross-validation loop or on a held-out set of SERPs and participants, and compare the total fixation time mean squared error; if the average error on truly unseen pages is substantially above 1.69 seconds, the generalization claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that mouse cursor trajectories, when combined with slot-specific metadata such as normalized center coordinates and slot category, carry enough signal to predict per-slot gaze behavior on multi-slot search engine result pages. The best model predicts total fixation time per slot with an average mean squared error of 2.86, corresponding to an average error of 1.69 seconds, and matches the true slot ranking with NDCG 96.07. For classification, the architecture determines whether a user noticed each slot category with an average AUC of 81.24. The evidence comes from a lab study with 47 participants, 2,776 trials, and eye-tracking ground truth, where the Seq2Seq model consistently beat MLP baselines across all cursor representations, target metrics, and loss functions.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracies assume the validation data used for hyperparameter selection is separate from the data used for final performance reporting, but the paper never specifies a held-out test set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method can estimate per-slot attention without eye-tracking hardware, making attention measurement scalable to large user populations.
  • Per-slot fixation time predictions can directly feed attention-weighted ad pricing schemes, where advertisers pay according to how likely their ad is noticed.
  • Slot noticeability classification with average AUC above 80 provides a practical signal for pay-per-attention auctions.
  • The Seq2Seq readout handles a variable number of slots, so the model can be applied to SERPs with different ad counts without retraining per layout.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the accuracy survives deployment outside the lab, per-impression attention estimates could be produced at the scale of real ad auctions on live search traffic.
  • The authors' observation that slot order does not affect predictions suggests the decoder learns about slot properties rather than a fixed layout, which could transfer to layouts never seen in training.
  • A concrete extension is applying the same encoder-decoder to other multi-element interfaces, such as social-media feeds or product shelves, using the same slot-metadata representation.
  • A stress test is low-cursor activity: users who navigate by keyboard or scroll without moving the mouse may break the input assumption, and the paper does not report such cases.
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 introduces AdSight, a Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence model that predicts per-slot attention metrics (total fixation time and fixation count) and slot-noticeability labels from mouse cursor trajectories and slot metadata on multi-slot Google SERPs. The evaluation uses an eye-tracking dataset of 2,776 trials from 47 participants, comparing AdSight against MLP-readout baselines and the methods of Arapakis and Leiva [6]. The authors report consistent improvements, including a TFT MSE of 2.86 and an average classification AUC of 81.24, together with ablations on slot coordinates, slot metadata, cursor features, and auxiliary slots.

Significance. If the reported accuracy estimates are unbiased, the paper makes a useful contribution: it proposes a scalable mouse-based proxy for eye-tracking attention in multi-slot layouts, handles a variable number of slots with a Seq2Seq architecture, and validates the approach against objective eye-tracking ground truth and external baselines. The strengths include the use of a realistic SERP dataset, statistically tested comparisons with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and systematic ablation studies. However, the evaluation protocol is under-specified in a way that directly affects the headline claims; the central accuracy numbers cannot currently be taken as unbiased estimates of generalization to new users or new SERPs.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, §5.2, §5.4] The evaluation protocol is not fully specified. Hyperparameters are optimized with Optuna using 3-fold cross-validation (§5.1 and §5.2), and §5.4 says results are 'the average predictive and ranking performance across test instances,' but the manuscript never states whether a separate held-out test set or nested cross-validation is used. If the same folds used for hyperparameter selection are also used for the reported metrics, the headline numbers in Table 1 and Table 2 are optimistically biased by model selection. Please clarify the exact protocol and, if no independent test set exists, re-evaluate with a proper held-out split.
  2. [§3.1, §3.3, §5.1] The data come from 47 participants contributing 2,776 trials, roughly 60 analyzed trials per participant, but the paper does not state whether trials from the same participant are kept in the same cross-validation fold. If folds are split at the trial level, the same user's cursor trajectories and eye fixations can appear in both training and test partitions. Because cursor movement style is user-specific, the model could exploit participant-identifying patterns rather than learning a general cursor-to-attention mapping. This would inflate all reported accuracies, including the comparisons against the MLP and [6] baselines. Please report results computed with participant-disjoint folds or with leave-one-participant-out evaluation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, Table 1] The statement that a TFT MSE of 2.86 'corresponds to an average error of 1.69 seconds' is a square-root transformation, i.e., an RMSE, not an average absolute error. Please state this explicitly and report mean absolute error if that is the intended interpretation.
  2. [§4.3.2] The classification labels depend on median-based TFT and TFC thresholds, but the actual threshold values are not reported. Reporting them is necessary for reproducibility of the label construction and for interpreting the observed fixation rates.
  3. [§3.3, §3.4] The procedure says the experiment was divided into eight blocks of ten trials each, while §3.4 says the SERPs were randomly organized into ten blocks. These numbers should be reconciled.
  4. [§5.1.1] The sentence 'we incorporates slot-specific features, which significantly improves the model's performance' contains a grammatical error ('we incorporates' should be 'we incorporate') and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline predictions are trained against independent eye-tracking ground truth; the self-citations to prior work by the same authors are used as baselines and dataset references, not as premises forcing the result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised learning pipeline: AdSight consumes mouse-cursor trajectories and slot metadata and is trained against eye-tracker-derived fixation labels (TFT, TFC, and thresholded fixation clusters for noticed/not-noticed outcomes). There is no step in which a predicted quantity is used to define an input or vice versa; the labels are independent of the model inputs, and the reported MSE/AUC values compare model outputs to that external ground truth. The visual cursor representations and the BiLSTM/ResNet50 baselines are taken from Arapakis and Leiva [6], and the dataset is described in [43]; these are self-citations with author overlap, but they are not load-bearing for the central claim, since the Seq2Seq model is evaluated against its own MLP baselines and against eye-tracking labels, and the cited works are used as comparative baselines rather than as premises that force the reported result. The hyperparameter optimization via 3-fold cross-validation and the lack of a clearly described separate test set is a genuine generalization-validity concern (and a possible source of optimistic bias), but the paper's text does not exhibit a step where a fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction by construction, so it is not a circularity finding under the defined criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's accuracy claims rest on standard ML hyperparameters, two label-generation thresholds, and domain assumptions about cursor-gaze coupling. Most of these are fitted or chosen from the same dataset used for evaluation, so the reported numbers should be read as conditional on these choices.

free parameters (8)
  • number of auxiliary slots N = 3
    Tuned on validation data; the optimum is N=3 in Table 6, and it affects all reported results.
  • auxiliary loss weight alpha = 0.33
    Tuned on validation data; the best value in Table 7, used for the headline TFT result of MSE 2.86.
  • latent space size l = searched {16, 32, 64}
    Hyperparameter selected by Optuna with 3-fold cross-validation.
  • ViT hidden layer factor k = searched {2, 4, 8}
    Hyperparameter for ViT embeddings, selected by Optuna.
  • learning rate eta = searched {1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5}
    Adam learning rate selected by Optuna.
  • batch size b = searched {16, 32, 64}
    Batch size selected by Optuna.
  • maximum cursor sequence length = 250 timesteps
    Set to mean sequence length plus one standard deviation; LSTM truncates and pads to this length.
  • fixation filtering and labeling thresholds = 100 ms; median TFT and TFC per category
    Fixations shorter than 100 ms are excluded, and classification labels use cluster thresholds set to median values in the data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mouse cursor movement is a valid proxy for gaze fixation on SERPs.
    The whole method relies on this coupling. The paper cites prior evidence [5,29,35,37,44,63], but does not verify it within this dataset.
  • domain assumption Eye-tracker fixations, after the described clustering and median-threshold labeling, are a correct operationalization of 'noticed' attention.
    Section 4.3.2 sets TFT and TFC thresholds to the median in the data. This is a heuristic, and any label error propagates to both training and evaluation.
  • domain assumption The 2,776 trials from 47 participants, drawn from Amazon product queries on Google SERPs, are representative enough to support claims about multi-slot SERP attention.
    The results are limited by this single lab population and layout family, while the conclusion makes broader generalization claims.
  • standard math Standard Transformer, LSTM, and ViT machinery behaves as specified in the cited literature.
    The model builds on Vaswani et al. [65], LSTM, and ViT [23]; no formal verification is provided.
  • domain assumption Sequences truncated or padded to length 250 preserve enough information for attention prediction.
    Section 4.1.1 sets the maximum length to mean plus one standard deviation; truncation could remove informative later cursor movements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AdSight: Scalable and Accurate Quantification of User Attention in Multi-Slot Sponsored Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3S6URVWE

@misc{pith2026250501451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AdSight: Scalable and Accurate Quantification of User Attention in Multi-Slot Sponsored Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3S6URVWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01451}
}
read the original abstract

Modern Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs) present complex layouts where multiple elements compete for visibility. Attention modelling is crucial for optimising web design and computational advertising, whereas attention metrics can inform ad placement and revenue strategies. We introduce AdSight, a method leveraging mouse cursor trajectories to quantify in a scalable and accurate manner user attention in multi-slot environments like SERPs. AdSight uses a novel Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence architecture where the encoder processes cursor trajectory embeddings, and the decoder incorporates slot-specific features, enabling robust attention prediction across various SERP layouts. We evaluate our approach on two Machine Learning tasks: (1) regression, to predict fixation times and counts; and (2) classification, to determine some slot types were noticed. Our findings demonstrate the model's ability to predict attention with unprecedented precision, offering actionable insights for researchers and practitioners.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual representations of mouse movements to train [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of Google SERPs with multi-slot lay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) baseline (Figure 3a) and Seq2Seq approach (Figure 3b). The baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Ioannis Arapakis and Luis A. Leiva. 2020. Learning Efficient Representations of Mouse Movements to Predict User Attention. In Proceedings of the 43rd In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’20) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3397271.3401031

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Johnny Accot and Shumin Zhai. 1997. Beyond Fitts’ law: models for trajectory- based HCI tasks. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’97) . https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258760

    arXiv 1997

  3. [2]

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. 2019. Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frame- work. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowl- edge Discovery & Data Mining (KDD ’19). https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330701

    arXiv 2019

  4. [3]

    Barla Cambazoglu, Mari-Carmen Marcos, and Joemon M

    Ioannis Arapakis, Mounia Lalmas, B. Barla Cambazoglu, Mari-Carmen Marcos, and Joemon M. Jose. 2014. User engagement in online News: Under the scope of sentiment, interest, affect, and gaze. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, 10 (Oct. 2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23096

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.23096 2014

  5. [7]

    Leiva, and B

    Ioannis Arapakis, Luis A. Leiva, and B. Barla Cambazoglu. 2015. Know Your Onions: Understanding the User Experience with the Knowledge Module in Web Search. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’15). https://doi.org/10.1145/2806416.2806591

    arXiv 2015

  6. [8]

    Ioannis Arapakis, Antonio Penta, Hideo Joho, and Luis A. Leiva. 2020. A Price-per- attention Auction Scheme Using Mouse Cursor Information.ACM Transactions on Information Systems 38, 2, Article 13 (Jan. 2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3374210

    work page doi:10.1145/3374210 2020

  7. [9]

    Richard Atterer, Monika Wnuk, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2006. Knowing the user’s every move: user activity tracking for website usability evaluation and implicit interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’06). https://doi.org/10.1145/1135777.1135811

    arXiv 2006

  8. [10]

    Judith Azcarraga and Merlin Teodosia Suarez. 2012. Predicting Academic Emo- tions Based on Brainwaves, Mouse Behaviour and Personality Profile. In PRICAI 2012: Trends in Artificial Intelligence , Patricia Anthony, Mitsuru Ishizuka, and Dickson Lukose (Eds.)

    work page 2012

Show all 66 references
  1. [11]

    Panos Balatsoukas and Ian Ruthven. 2012. An eye-tracking approach to the analysis of relevance judgments on the Web: The case of Google search engine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, 9 (2012), 1728–1746. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22707

    2012 doi

  2. [12]

    Paolo Boi, Gianni Fenu, Lucio Davide Spano, and Valentino Vargiu. 2016. Re- constructing User’s Attention on the Web Through Mouse Movements and Perception-Based Content Identification. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 13, 3 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2912124

    2016 doi

  3. [13]

    Brightfish, Profacts, and Lumen. 2018. From viewable to viewed: using eye tracking to understand the reality of attention to advertising across media. White paper. Retrieved on October 10, 2019. Available at https://effectiveviews.be/files/ White_Paper_From_Viewable_to_viewed.pdf

    2018

  4. [14]

    Lukas Brückner, Ioannis Arapakis, and Luis A. Leiva. 2021. When Choice Happens: A Systematic Examination of Mouse Movement Length for Decision Making in Web Search. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retriev...

    2021

  5. [15]

    Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ’07). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1273496.1273513

    2007

  6. [16]

    S. K. Card, W. K. English, and B. J. Burr. 1987. Evaluation of Mouse, Rate-controlled Isometric Joystick, Step Keys, and Text Keys, for Text Selection on a CRT. In Human-computer Interaction, R. M. Baecker and W. A. S. Buxton (Eds.)

    1987

  7. [17]

    Zelinsky, and Dimitris Samaras

    Souradeep Chakraborty, Zijun Wei, Conor Kelton, Seoyoung Ahn, Aruna Bala- subramanian, Gregory J. Zelinsky, and Dimitris Samaras. 2023. Predicting Visual Attention in Graphic Design Documents. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 25 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/tmm.2022.3176942

    2023

  8. [19]

    Aleksandr Chuklin and Maarten de Rijke. 2016. Incorporating Clicks, Attention and Satisfaction into a Search Engine Result Page Evaluation Model. In Proceed- ings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’16) . https://doi.org/1...

    2016

  9. [20]

    Mark Claypool, Phong Le, Makoto Wased, and David Brown. 2001. Implicit interest indicators. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’01) . https://doi.org/10.1145/359784.359836

    2001

  10. [22]

    Abdigani Diriye, Ryen White, Georg Buscher, and Susan Dumais. 2012. Leaving So Soon? Understanding and Predicting Web Search Abandonment Rationales. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowl- edge Management (CIKM ’12) . https://doi.org/1...

    2012

  11. [23]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recogn...

    2021

  12. [24]

    Feild, James Allan, and Rosie Jones

    Henry A. Feild, James Allan, and Rosie Jones. 2010. Predicting searcher frustration. In Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’10) . https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449. 1835458

    2010 doi

  13. [25]

    Robertson, and Christo Wilson

    Jeffrey Gleason, Alice Koeninger, Desheng Hu, Jessica Teurn, Yakov Bart, Sam- sun Knight, Ronald E. Robertson, and Christo Wilson. 2024. Search Engine Revenue from Navigational and Brand Advertising. In Proceedings of the Eigh- teenth International AAAI Conference on Web and S...

    2024 doi

  14. [26]

    Goldberg, Mark J

    Joseph H. Goldberg, Mark J. Stimson, Marion Lewenstein, Neil Scott, and Anna M. Wichansky. 2002. Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications. In Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA ’02). https://doi.org/10.1145/507072.507082

    2002

  15. [27]

    Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2008. Exploring mouse movements for inferring query intent. InProceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’08) . https://doi.org/ 10.1145/1390334.1390462

    2008

  16. [28]

    Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2010. Ready to buy or just browsing? detecting web searcher goals from interaction data. In Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’10). https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835473

    2010

  17. [29]

    Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2012. Beyond dwell time: estimating document relevance from cursor movements and other post-click searcher behavior. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’12) . https://doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187914

    2012

  18. [30]

    Qi Guo, Dmitry Lagun, and Eugene Agichtein. 2012. Predicting web search success with fine-grained interaction data. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM In- ternational Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’12) . https://doi.org/10.1145/2396761.2398570

    2012

  19. [31]

    Qi Guo, Shuai Yuan, and Eugene Agichtein. 2011. Detecting success in mo- bile search from interaction. In Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’11) . https://doi.org/10.1145/2009916.2010133

    2011

  20. [32]

    Jacek Gwizdka, Rachel Tessmer, Yao-Cheng Chan, Kavita Radhakrishnan, and Maya L. Henry. 2022. Eye-Gaze and Mouse-Movements on Web Search as In- dicators of Cognitive Impairment. In Information Systems and Neuroscience . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13064-9_20 LNISO

    2022 doi

  21. [33]

    Ahmed Hassan, Rosie Jones, and Kristina Lisa Klinkner. 2010. Beyond DCG: user behavior as a predictor of a successful search. In Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’10) . https: //doi.org/10.1145/1718487.1718515

    2010

  22. [34]

    David Hauger, Alexandros Paramythis, and Stephan Weibelzahl. 2011. Using browser interaction data to determine page reading behavior. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaption, and Personalization (UMAP’11)

    2011

  23. [35]

    Jeff Huang, Ryen White, and Georg Buscher. 2012. User see, user point: gaze and cursor alignment in web search. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12) . https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208591

    2012

  24. [36]

    White, Georg Buscher, and Kuansan Wang

    Jeff Huang, Ryen W. White, Georg Buscher, and Kuansan Wang. 2012. Improving searcher models using mouse cursor activity. In Proceedings of the 35th Inter- national ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’12) . https://doi.org/10.1145/2...

    2012

  25. [37]

    White, and Susan Dumais

    Jeff Huang, Ryen W. White, and Susan Dumais. 2011. No clicks, no problem: using cursor movements to understand and improve search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11) . https: //doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979125

    2011

  26. [38]

    Shamim Hossain

    Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Prayag Tiwari, and M. Shamim Hossain. 2023. Predicting users’ behavior using mouse movement information: an information foraging theory perspective. Neural Computing and Applications 35, 33 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05306-7

    2023 doi

  27. [39]

    Arturas Kaklauskas, Mindaugas Krutinis, and Mark Seniut. 2009. Biometric Mouse Intelligent System for Student’s Emotional and Examination Process Analysis. In 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2009.130 Ad...

    2009 doi

  28. [40]

    Ashish Kapoor, Winslow Burleson, and Rosalind W. Picard. 2007. Automatic prediction of frustration. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 8 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.02.003

    2007 doi

  29. [41]

    Peter Kratky and Daniela Chuda. 2016. Estimating Gender and Age of Web Page Visitors from the Way They Use Their Mouse. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (WWW ’16 Companion) . https://doi.org/10.1145/2872518.2889384

    2016

  30. [42]

    Dmitry Lagun, Mikhail Ageev, Qi Guo, and Eugene Agichtein. 2014. Discovering common motifs in cursor movement data for improving web search. InProceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’14). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556195.2556265

    2014

  31. [43]

    Kayhan Latifzadeh, Jacek Gwizdka, and Luis A. Leiva. 2025. A Versatile Dataset of Mouse and Eye Movements on Search Engine Results Pages. In Proceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145...

    2025

  32. [44]

    Luis A Leiva and Ioannis Arapakis. 2020. The Attentive Cursor Dataset. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.565664

    2020

  33. [45]

    Leiva, Ioannis Arapakis, and Costas Iordanou

    Luis A. Leiva, Ioannis Arapakis, and Costas Iordanou. 2021. My Mouse, My Rules: Privacy Issues of Behavioral User Profiling via Mouse Tracking. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’21) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3406522.3446011

    2021

  34. [46]

    Leiva and Roberto Vivó

    Luis A. Leiva and Roberto Vivó. 2013. Web browsing behavior analysis and interactive hypervideo. ACM Transactions on the Web 7, 4 (2013). https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2529995.2529996

    2013

  35. [47]

    Yixuan Li, Pingmei Xu, Dmitry Lagun, and Vidhya Navalpakkam. 2017. Towards Measuring and Inferring User Interest from Gaze. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (WWW ’17 Companion) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3041021.3054182

    2017

  36. [49]

    Yiqun Liu, Zeyang Liu, Ke Zhou, Meng Wang, Huanbo Luan, Chao Wang, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2016. Predicting Search User Examination with Visual Saliency. InProceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGI...

    2016

  37. [50]

    Yiqun Liu, Chao Wang, Ke Zhou, Jianyun Nie, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2014. From Skimming to Reading: A Two-stage Examination Model for Web Search. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’14). https...

    2014

  38. [51]

    Mora Maldonado, Ewan Dunbar, and Emmanuel Chemla. 2019. Mouse tracking as a window into decision making. Behavior Research Methods 51, 3 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01194-x

    2019 doi

  39. [52]

    Josip Maras. 2016. Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja

    2016

  40. [53]

    Leiva, Jeff Huang, and Réjean Plamondon

    Daniel Martín-Albo, Luis A. Leiva, Jeff Huang, and Réjean Plamondon. 2016. Strokes of insight: User intent detection and kinematic compression of mouse cursor trails. Information Processing & Management 52, 6 (2016). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ipm.2016.04.005

    2016 doi

  41. [54]

    Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton van den Hengel

  42. [55]

    Florian Mueller and Andrea Lockerd. 2001. Cheese: tracking mouse movement activity on websites, a tool for user modeling. In CHI ’01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’01) . https://doi.org/10.1145/ 634067.634233

    2001

  43. [56]

    Alexandra Papoutsaki, Patsorn Sangkloy, James Laskey, Nediyana Daskalova, Jeff Huang, and James Hays. 2016. Webgazer: scalable webcam eye tracking using user interactions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16)

    2016

  44. [57]

    Avar Pentel. 2017. Predicting Age and Gender by Keystroke Dynamics and Mouse Patterns. In Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ’17) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3099023. 3099105

    2017 doi

  45. [58]

    Nirmal Roy, David Maxwell, and Claudia Hauff. 2022. Users and Contemporary SERPs: A (Re-)Investigation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’22) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3531719

    2022

  46. [59]

    Yunqiu Shao, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2022. From linear to non-linear: investigating the effects of right-rail results on complex SERPs. Advances in Computational Intelligence 2, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s43674-021-00028-2

    2022

  47. [60]

    Bracha Shapira, Meirav Taieb-Maimon, and Anny Moskowitz. 2006. Study of the usefulness of known and new implicit indicators and their optimal combination for accurate inference of users interests. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Sympo- sium on Applied Computing (SAC ’06) . http...

    2006

  48. [61]

    Smith, Joseph Sharit, and Sara J

    Michael W. Smith, Joseph Sharit, and Sara J. Czaja. 1999. Aging, Motor Control, and the Performance of Computer Mouse Tasks. Human Factors 41, 3 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872099779611102

    1999 doi

  49. [62]

    D. Soman. 1998. The illusion of delayed incentives: Evaluating future effort- money transactions. Journal of Marketing Research 35, 4 (1998). https://doi.org/ 10.1177/002224379803500402

    1998 doi

  50. [63]

    Maximilian Speicher, Andreas Both, and Martin Gaedke. 2013. TellMyRelevance! predicting the relevance of web search results from cursor interactions. In Pro- ceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (CIKM ’13) . https://doi.org/10...

    2013

  51. [64]

    Stillman, Xi Shen, and Melissa J

    Paul E. Stillman, Xi Shen, and Melissa J. Ferguson. 2018. How Mouse-tracking Can Advance Social Cognitive Theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22, 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.012

    2018 doi

  52. [65]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 30. Cur- ran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips....

    2017

  53. [66]

    Takashi Yamauchi. 2013. Mouse Trajectories and State Anxiety: Feature Selec- tion with Random Forest. In 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction . https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2013.72

    2013 doi

  54. [67]

    Takashi Yamauchi and Casady Bowman. 2014. Mining Cursor Motions to Find the Gender, Experience, and Feelings of Computer Users. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshop . https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2014.131

    2014 doi

  55. [68]

    Gal Zauberman. 2003. The intertemporal dynamics of consumer lock-in. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2003)

    2003

  56. [69]

    Ines Zelch, Matthias Hagen, and Martin Potthast. 2024. A User Study on the Acceptance of Native Advertising in Generative IR. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’24) . https: //doi.org/10.1145/3627508.3638316

    2024

  57. [70]

    Philippe Zimmermann, Sissel Guttormsen, Brigitta Danuser, and Patrick Gomez and. 2003. Affective Computing–A Rationale for Measuring Mood With Mouse and Keyboard. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 9, 4 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2003.110...

    2003

  58. [2015]

    In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Image-Based Recommendations on Styles and Substitutes. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767755

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.