Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AI-based Multimodal Biometrics for Detecting Smartphone Distractions: Application to Online Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a multimodal model combining EEG, heart rate, and head pose detects phone use in 40-second windows of online learning with 91% accuracy, and that head pose alone reaches 87%.

desk verdict Head pose is the real signal here, but the 87%/91% accuracy claims need a nested-validation re-run before they should be cited as fact. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17364 v2 pith:QT3VDBJU submitted 2025-06-20 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CVcs.HC

Alvaro Becerra , Roberto Daza , Ruth Cobos , Aythami Morales , Mutlu Cukurova , Julian Fierrez This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CVcs.HC
keywords smartphonedistractiondetectionmultimodalbiometricsheadposeEEGheartrateonlinelearninganalytics
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

The paper sets out to show that smartphone use during an online course can be detected automatically from a 40-second window of multimodal signals, and that the strongest single signal is not brain activity but head movement. On the IMPROVE dataset, the authors train per-signal models on attention, meditation, EEG bands, heart rate, and head pose, then fuse the signals. They report 87% accuracy for head pose alone and 91% for the full multimodal model, with a webcam-only system as the practical payoff. If the result holds, online learning platforms could flag distraction episodes in real time and prompt learners to refocus.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a fixed recipe of global features. Each 40-second window is cut into two 20-second segments, each input signal (roll, yaw, pitch, EEG bands, attention, meditation, heart rate) is summarized by 33 velocity, acceleration, and jerk statistics, and the two segment vectors are concatenated into a 65-dimensional normalized vector. Random Forest and SVM classifiers are then trained on these vectors, with optional signal smoothing over 5 to 30 seconds and feature selection via SelectKBest or PCA. This pipeline lets heterogeneous 1 Hz biosignals and webcam-derived head angles be compared under the same classification machinery, and it is the basis for both the unimodal and the early-fusion multimodal models.

What would settle it

Re-run the leave-one-participant-out evaluation with the feature-selection and dimension-reduction steps fitted only inside each training fold, and with the smoothing-window and classifier settings chosen on an inner validation split; if head-pose accuracy then lands near the 61–70% physiological-signal range instead of 87%, the headline numbers reflect configuration selection rather than a genuine phone-use signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, on its own terms, is that phone use during online learning leaves a measurable trace in a 40-second window of multimodal data, and that this trace is strong enough for binary classification: 66 phone-use windows, each made of 20 seconds before plus the first 20 seconds of responding to a researcher-sent message, against 66 non-use windows drawn from the same course activities. Under leave-one-participant-out evaluation, individual EEG and heart-rate signals perform poorly, between 61% and 70% accuracy; combining all EEG signals with heart rate reaches 76%; head pose alone reaches 87%; and the concatenation of all signals reaches 91%. The paper interprets the head-pose result as evidence that postural change is the dominant, accessible signal, and the multimodal gain as confirmation that integration helps in multimodal learning analytics.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 87% and 91% accuracies rest on the assumption that the model configuration search was leakage-free: feature selection and dimension reduction were fitted inside each training fold, and no held-out accuracy was used to pick the final configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A webcam-only head-pose model could be embedded in existing online learning platforms to flag likely phone use without any wearable sensor.
  • The 4.6-point gain from adding EEG and heart rate to head pose quantifies the marginal value of physiological sensing once posture is already available.
  • The 40-second windowing rule gives a concrete design constraint for real-time distraction detection, since alerts could be issued shortly after a phone interaction begins.
  • The large gap between the 76% accuracy of EEG plus heart rate and the 87% accuracy of head pose suggests that future data collection can prioritize video-based postural signals over more invasive biosensors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its instructed protocol, in which learners were told to keep phones visible and respond to two messages, may produce larger and more consistent posture shifts than naturalistic phone use; testing with spontaneously logged phone usage would show whether the accuracy holds outside the scripted setting.
  • Because head pose dominates the prediction, the classifier may be detecting downward or away gazes generally rather than phone use specifically, and it could confuse looking at handwritten notes or a second screen with phone distraction.
  • A natural extension not validated in the paper is replacing EEG and heart-rate wearables with webcam-estimated proxies, such as remote photoplethysmography and face-based attention scores, to see whether most of the 91% can be recovered while staying webcam-only.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes machine-learning models to detect smartphone use during online learning from physiological signals (EEG attention/meditation bands and heart rate) and webcam-based head pose. Using the IMPROVE dataset, the authors construct 40-second windows (20 seconds before and 20 seconds during phone use for the positive class; two no-phone segments for the negative class), extract 33 global features per signal per 20-second segment, and evaluate random forest and SVM classifiers with smoothing windows, SelectKBest, and PCA under leave-one-out cross-validation at the participant level. The best reported accuracies are 87% for head pose alone and 91% for the multimodal EEG+HR+HP model, compared with 76% for EEG+HR. The paper concludes that head pose alone is a practical webcam-only signal and that combining modalities improves accuracy.

Significance. If the reported accuracies are unbiased, the main finding is practically important: a webcam-only head-pose model could detect phone-induced distraction in online learning with 87% accuracy, and adding physiological sensors raises this to 91%. The evaluation design has real strengths: participant-level LOOCV prevents the most obvious form of data leakage, the dataset is task-specific, and the unimodal versus multimodal comparisons are informative. The central claims rest, however, on a small sample (132 instances from 66 participants) and on preprocessing and model-selection choices whose leak-freeness is not documented. The paper would be a useful empirical contribution if the accuracy estimates were shown to survive properly nested evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, preprocessing and feature selection] The paper does not state whether z-score normalization (described as applying the z-score technique to the combined feature vector), SelectKBest/PCA, or the smoothing-window size are fitted/selected inside each leave-one-out training fold or on the full 132-sample dataset. If any of these use the full dataset, the held-out participant's data influence preprocessing and feature selection, and the reported 87% and 91% accuracies are optimistically biased. This is a load-bearing issue for the central claims, and the manuscript must specify the exact per-fold protocol and, ideally, rerun the evaluation with all preprocessing and selection nested inside the training folds.
  2. [§5, Table 2 and model selection] The reported accuracies are the maximum over a large grid: three classifiers (RF, linear SVM, Gaussian SVM), three feature treatments (all features, SelectKBest, PCA), several SelectKBest subset sizes, and smoothing windows of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 seconds. No inner validation loop is described for choosing among these configurations. Selecting the best configuration on the same folds used for evaluation can inflate accuracy, especially with only 132 instances. The authors should provide a nested cross-validation estimate or otherwise quantify the selection bias, for example by reporting the mean and variance of accuracy across the configuration grid.
  3. [§4.1, label protocol] The positive windows come from participants who were instructed to respond to two researcher-sent messages, while the negative windows come from a separate group of participants who had their phones removed, sampled during different activities (second video and reading code). This means 'phone use' is confounded with participant group and with activity type. The high accuracies may partly reflect systematic group-level differences rather than the specific behavior of phone use. The manuscript should acknowledge this limitation explicitly and, if possible, provide an analysis that controls for activity or uses within-participant contrasts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4, smoothing-window description] The sentence 'the value at time t was calculated as the average of the previous values N' should read 'the average of the previous N values'.
  2. [§5.1, percentages] Phrases such as 'improved by 8.57%' and 'improved on the head pose model by 4.60%' should specify 'percentage points' to avoid ambiguity between relative and absolute improvement.
  3. [Table 2] The SelectKBest subset sizes (40, 120, 250 features) are reported without stating how these sizes were chosen; the authors should clarify whether they were selected on the training folds only and over what range.
  4. [§4.1, protocol] For phone-use events shorter than 20 seconds, the positive window includes post-usage data; this weakens the label purity and should be mentioned as a limitation in the main text rather than only as a protocol detail.
  5. [§5.2, dataset size] The paper acknowledges that 132 instances is not exceptionally large; this limitation is compounded by the model-selection issue raised above, so the accuracy numbers should be presented with confidence intervals or standard errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the reported accuracies are empirical leave-one-participant-out results, not quantities defined in terms of fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (87% head-pose accuracy, 91% multimodal accuracy) are measured classification results from a participant-level leave-one-out evaluation, not quantities derived from an equation that reduces to its own inputs. The protocol is stated explicitly: "In each fold, data from a single learner (comprising two samples) was used as the test set, while the remaining 65 learners (130 samples) were used for training." This makes the headline numbers out-of-sample at the participant level. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the 33 global features are computed directly from the raw signals, and the classifiers are standard RF and SVM models. The self-citations to the IMPROVE dataset [17], the head-pose prior work [11], and the feature set [19] provide data, context, and feature definitions, but none is used as proof of the current accuracy figures; in particular, [11] is cited only as supporting the observation that head posture changes during phone use, which is independently measured in this study. The authors also acknowledge the dataset-size limitation and propose future scaling, which is an explicit limitation statement rather than a circular step. Potential concerns about z-score normalization, SelectKBest/PCA, or smoothing-window choices being fitted on the full dataset are not established from the text; they are methodological leakage risks that would require a re-run to assess, and under the no-speculation rule they are not scored as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the quality of the IMPROVE dataset labels, the accuracy of the head pose and EEG sensor pipelines, and the design choices in the 40-second window protocol. Several hyperparameters (smoothing window sizes, feature subset sizes, classifier settings) were tuned on the evaluation data, and their best values are part of the reported results. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Smoothing window size (Wsmooth) = 30 s for the best multimodal model; 5-30 s tested
    Section 4.1: for each signal/model, several smoothing window sizes were compared and the best one was reported; this choice affects the accuracy in Table 2.
  • Number of random forest trees = 250
    Section 4.1: authors tested 100-500 and chose 250 after observing no improvement; part of the reported best models.
  • SelectKBest feature subset sizes = 40 (HR), 120 (HP), 250 (multimodal)
    Table 2: the best models use subsets of this size; the choice is based on validation performance and is not independently justified.
  • PCA variance threshold = 95%
    Section 4.1: PCA was applied to retain 95% of variance for some models; the threshold is chosen by hand.
  • SVM regularization C = 1
    Section 4.1: C=1 used for linear and Gaussian kernels; set without tuning.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The smartphone-use labels in the IMPROVE dataset are accurate: researchers sent two messages per learner and labeled the response periods as phone events.
    Section 3; if labels are noisy, the accuracy estimates are unreliable.
  • domain assumption The head pose estimates from a webcam-based detector are accurate enough to capture the relevant movements.
    Sections 3 and 5; no validation of the head pose detector on this dataset is reported.
  • domain assumption The 40-second window protocol with Wpre and Wphone (or two no-phone segments) produces samples representative of phone-usage and non-usage behavior.
    Section 4.1; the protocol excludes keystroke and eye tracking data and defines a narrow operationalization of phone use (responding to two researcher messages).
  • domain assumption The global feature set from prior literature is sufficient to capture the phone-use signal.
    Section 4.1, Table 1; features are adopted from earlier works without dataset-specific validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-based Multimodal Biometrics for Detecting Smartphone Distractions: Application to Online Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QT3VDBJU

@misc{pith2026250617364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-based Multimodal Biometrics for Detecting Smartphone Distractions: Application to Online Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QT3VDBJU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17364}
}
read the original abstract

This work investigates the use of multimodal biometrics to detect distractions caused by smartphone use during tasks that require sustained attention, with a focus on computer-based online learning. Although the methods are applicable to various domains, such as autonomous driving, we concentrate on the challenges learners face in maintaining engagement amid internal (e.g., motivation), system-related (e.g., course design) and contextual (e.g., smartphone use) factors. Traditional learning platforms often lack detailed behavioral data, but Multimodal Learning Analytics (MMLA) and biosensors provide new insights into learner attention. We propose an AI-based approach that leverages physiological signals and head pose data to detect phone use. Our results show that single biometric signals, such as brain waves or heart rate, offer limited accuracy, while head pose alone achieves 87%. A multimodal model combining all signals reaches 91% accuracy, highlighting the benefits of integration. We conclude by discussing the implications and limitations of deploying these models for real-time support in online learning environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outline of the unimodal models. For the EEG signals and heart rate we devel￾oped unimodal models using global features ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Probability density distributions of the probability scores obtained with the 3 best models indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ROC obtained for the most accurate models indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. PBa-LLM: Privacy- and Bias-aware NLP using Named-Entity Recognition (NER)

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    NER-based removal of person and location entities from resumes preserves occupancy-prediction accuracy on FairCVdb, and combined with a debiasing module yields gender-balanced shortlists.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    In: Proc

    Becerra, A., Irigoyen, J., Daza, R., Cobos, R., et al.: Biometrics and Behavior Analysis for Detecting Distractions in E-Learning. In: Proc. SIIE. IEEE (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Pattern Recognition127, 108643 (July 2022)

    Acien, A., Morales, A., et al.: BeCAPTCHA-Mouse: Synthetic mouse trajectories and improved bot detection. Pattern Recognition127, 108643 (July 2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    IEEE Trans

    Acien, A., Morales, A., et al.: TypeNet: Deep learning keystroke biometrics. IEEE Trans. on Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science4(1), 57–70 (January 2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    In: Proc

    Acien, A., et al.: Smartphone sensors for modeling HCI: General outlook and re- search datasets for user authentication. In: Proc. IEEE COMPSAC (July 2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G., Hambrick, D.Z.: Momentary Interruptions Can De- rail the Train of Thought. J. of Exp. Psychology: General143(1), 215 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conf

    Artan, Y., Bulan, O., Loce, R.P., Paul, P.: Driver Cell Phone Usage Detection from HOV/HOT NIR Images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. pp. 225–230 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Com- puters & Graphics109, 75–87 (2022)

    Asish, S.M., Kulshreshth, A.K., Borst, C.W.: Detecting Distracted Students in Educational VR Environments Using Machine Learning on Eye Gaze Data. Com- puters & Graphics109, 75–87 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    MOSAIC-F: A Framework for Enhancing Students' Oral Presentation Skills through Personalized Feedback

    Becerra, A., Andres, D., Villegas, P., Daza, R., Cobos, R.: MOSAIC-F: A Frame- work for Enhancing Students’ Oral Presentation Skills through Personalized Feed- back. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08634 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    In: 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conf

    Becerra, A., Cobos, R.: Enhancing the Professional Development of Engineering Students Through an AI-Based Collaborative Feedback System. In: 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conf. (EDUCON). pp. 1–9. IEEE (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    In: Proc

    Becerra, A., Daza, R., Cobos, R., Morales, A., Cukurova, M., Fierrez, J.: M2LADS: A System for Generating Multimodal Learning Analytics Dashboards. In: Proc. COMPSAC. pp. 1564–1569. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    In: Proc

    Becerra, A., Daza, R., Cobos, R., et al.: M2LADS Demo: A System for Generat- ing Multimodal Learning Analytics Dashboards. In: Proc. of AAAI Workshop on Innovation and Responsibility for AI-Supported Education (iRAISE) (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    In: 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conf

    Becerra, A., Mohseni, Z., Sanz, J., Cobos, R.: A Generative AI-Based Personalized Guidance Tool for Enhancing the Feedback to MOOC Learners. In: 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conf. (EDUCON). pp. 1–8. IEEE (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Artificial Life and Robotics28(1), 166–174 (2023)

    Betto, I., Hatano, R., Nishiyama, H.: Distraction Detection of Lectures in E- Learning Using Machine Learning Based on Human Facial Features and Postural Information. Artificial Life and Robotics28(1), 166–174 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology4(4), 222 (2018)

    Blasiman, R.N., Larabee, D., Fabry, D.: Distracted Students: A Comparison of Multiple Types of Distractions on Learning in Online Lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology4(4), 222 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Ciordas-Hertel, G.P., Rödling, S., Schneider, J., Di Mitri, D., Weidlich, J., Drach- sler, H.: Mobile Sensing with Smart Wearables of the Physical Context of Distance LearningStudentsto ConsiderItsEffectson Learning.Sensors21(19), 6649(2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Electronics 12, 3368 (2023) 14 Becerra et al

    Cobos, R.: Self-Regulated Learning and Active Feedback of MOOC Learners Sup- ported by the Intervention Strategy of a Learning Analytics System. Electronics 12, 3368 (2023) 14 Becerra et al

    2023

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14195 (2024)

    Daza, R., Becerra, A., Cobos, R., Fierrez, J., Morales, A.: A multimodal dataset for understanding the impact of mobile phones on remote online virtual education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14195 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    In: Proc

    Daza, R., DeAlcala, D., Morales, A., Tolosana, R., Cobos, R., Fierrez, J.: ALEBk: Feasibility Study of Attention Level Estimation via Blink Detection Applied to E- Learning. In: Proc. AAAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Education (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    IEEE Access12, 111343–111359 (2024)

    Daza, R., Gomez, L.F., Fierrez, J., Morales, A., Tolosana, R., Ortega-Garcia, J.: DeepFace-Attention: Multimodal Face Biometrics for Attention Estimation With Application to E-Learning. IEEE Access12, 111343–111359 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Pattern Recognition Letters182, 83–89 (2024)

    Daza, R., Morales, A., Fierrez, J., Tolosana, R., Vera-Rodriguez, R.: mEBAL2 Database and Benchmark: Image-Based Multispectral Eyeblink Detection. Pattern Recognition Letters182, 83–89 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    In: Proc

    Daza, R., Morales, A., Tolosana, R., Gomez, L.F., Fierrez, J., Ortega-Garcia, J.: edBB-Demo: Biometrics and Behavior Analysis for Online Educational Platforms. In: Proc. of the AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 16422–16424 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    In: Proc

    Daza, R., Shengkai, L., Morales, A., Fierrez, J., Nagao, K.: SMARTe-VR: Student Monitoring and Adaptive Response Technology for e-Learning in Virtual Reality. In: Proc. AAAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Education (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Expert Systems with Applications237, 121537 (2024)

    Delgado-Santos, P., Tolosana, R., et al.: SwipeFormer: Transformers for mobile touchscreen biometrics. Expert Systems with Applications237, 121537 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    In: Proc

    Fierrez, J., et al.: An on-line signature verification system based on fusion of local and global information. In: Proc. of AVPBA. pp. 523–532. Springer LNCS (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    IEEE Trans

    Fierrez, J., et al.: Target dependent score normalization techniques and their ap- plication to signature verification. IEEE Trans. on SMC-C35(3), 418–425 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    IEEE Trans

    Fierrez, J., et al.: Benchmarking touchscreen biometrics for mobile authentication. IEEE Trans. on Information Forensics and Security13(11), 2720–2733 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Part 1: Fundamentals and Review

    Fierrez, J., Morales, A., Vera-Rodriguez, R., Camacho, D.: Multiple Classifiers in Biometrics. Part 1: Fundamentals and Review. Information Fusion44, 57–64 (November 2018). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.12.003

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Giannakos, M.N., Sharma, K., Pappas, I.O., Kostakos, V., Velloso, E.: Multimodal Data as a Means to Understand the Learning Experience. Intl. J. of Information Management48, 108–119 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Educational Psychology Review33, 27–49 (2021)

    Goldberg, P., Sümer, Ö., Stürmer, K., Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Gerjets, P., Kas- neci, E., Trautwein, U.: Attentive or Not? Toward a Machine Learning Approach to Assessing Students’ Visible Engagement in Classroom Instruction. Educational Psychology Review33, 27–49 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    In: Proc

    Hernandez-Ortega, J., Fierrez, J., et al.: A comparative evaluation of heart rate estimation methods using face videos. In: Proc. of IEEE COMPSAC (July 2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    In: Proc

    Hernandez-Ortega, J., et al.: Quality-based pulse estimation from NIR face video with application to driver monitoring. In: Proc. of IbPRIA. Springer (July 2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    In: LAK 2020 Proceed- ings

    Iraj, H., Fudge, A., Faulkner, M., Pardo, A., Kovanović, V.: Understanding Stu- dents’ Engagement with Personalised Feedback Messages. In: LAK 2020 Proceed- ings. pp. 438–447. ACM (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Intelligent Systems with Applications16, 200153 (2022)

    Kaddoura, S., Gumaei, A.: Towards Effective and Efficient Online Exam Systems Using Deep Learning-Based Cheating Detection Approach. Intelligent Systems with Applications16, 200153 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    PloS One13, 1–23 (2018) AI-based Multimodal Biometrics for Detecting Smartphone Distractions 15

    Krejtz, K., Duchowski, A.T., Niedzielska, A., Biele, C., Krejtz, I.: Eye Tracking Cognitive Load Using Pupil Diameter and Microsaccades With Fixed Gaze. PloS One13, 1–23 (2018) AI-based Multimodal Biometrics for Detecting Smartphone Distractions 15

    2018

  27. [35]

    Mangaroska, K., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Vesin, B., Gašević, D.: Challenges and Opportunities of Multimodal Data in Human Learning: The Computer Science Students’ Perspective. J. of Computer Assisted Learning37(4), 1030–1047 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    IET Biometrics3(4), 267–277 (December 2014)

    Martinez-Diaz, M., Fierrez, J., Krish, R.P., Galbally, J.: Mobile Signature Veri- fication: Feature Robustness and Performance Comparison. IET Biometrics3(4), 267–277 (December 2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Sensors19(14), 3110 (2019)

    Mendez, E., Ortiz, A., Ponce, P., et al.: Mobile Phone Usage Detection by ANN Trained with a Metaheuristic Algorithm. Sensors19(14), 3110 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    In: Proc

    Morales, A., Fierrez, J.: Keystroke Biometrics for Student Authentication: A Case Study. In: Proc. of 20th Annual Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE. ACM (July 2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    In: Proc

    Navarro, M., Becerra, A., Daza, R., Cobos, R., et al.: VAAD: Visual attention analysis dashboard applied to e-learning. In: Proc. SIIE. IEEE (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    In: Proc

    Peng, S., Chen, L., Gao, C., Tong, R.J.: Predicting Students’ Attention Level With Interpretable Facial and Head Dynamic Features in an Online Tutoring System. In: Proc. of the AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 13895–13896 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    SN Computer Science4(5), 434 (June 2023)

    Peña, A., et al.: Human-centric multimodal machine learning: Recent advances and testbed on AI-based recruitment. SN Computer Science4(5), 434 (June 2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Computer Applications in Engineering Education32(1), e22682 (2024)

    Rodríguez, A.O., Riaño, M.A., García, P.A., Marín, C.E.: Application of Learning Analytics for Sequential Patterns Detection Associated with Moments of Distrac- tion in Students in E-Learning Platforms. Computer Applications in Engineering Education32(1), e22682 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    In: Proc

    Seshadri, K., Juefei-Xu, F., Pal, D.K., Savvides, M., Thor, C.P.: Driver Cell Phone Usage Detection on Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) Face View Videos. In: Proc. CVPR Workshops. pp. 35–43 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Jurnal Pen- gajian Media Malaysia23(1), 15–28 (2021)

    Sharin, A.N.: E-Learning During COVID-19: A Review of Literature. Jurnal Pen- gajian Media Malaysia23(1), 15–28 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Journal of Computer Assisted Learning34(4), 366–377 (2018)

    Spikol, D., Ruffaldi, E., Dabisias, G., Cukurova, M.: Supervised Machine Learn- ing in Multimodal Learning Analytics for Estimating Success in Project-Based Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning34(4), 366–377 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Pattern Recognition161, 111287 (2025)

    Stragapede, G., Vera-Rodriguez, R., et al.: KVC-onGoing: Keystroke verification challenge. Pattern Recognition161, 111287 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Neural Comput- ing and Applications35(1), 1009–1023 (2023)

    Tatar, A.B.: Biometric Identification System Using EEG Signals. Neural Comput- ing and Applications35(1), 1009–1023 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2024)

    Topali, P., Cobos, R., Agirre-Uribarren, U., Martínez-Monés, A., Villagrá-Sobrino, S.: ‘Instructor in Action’: Co-Design and Evaluation of Human-Centred LA- Informed Feedback in MOOCs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    In: International Conf

    Topali, P., Ortega-Arranz, A., Er, E., Martínez-Monés, A., Villagrá-Sobrino, S.L., Dimitriadis, Y.: Exploring the Problems Experienced by Learners in a MOOC Implementing Active Learning Pedagogies. In: International Conf. on Learning and Collaboration Technologies. LNCS, vol. ...

    2019

  42. [50]

    Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2022(1), 1483531 (2022)

    Wang, C.: Comprehensively Summarizing What Distracts Students from On- line Learning: A Literature Review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2022(1), 1483531 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    ALT-J18(1), 71–83 (2010)

    Winter,J.,Cotton,D.,Gavin,J.,Yorke,J.D.:EffectiveE-Learning?Multi-Tasking, Distractions and Boundary Management by Graduate Students in an Online En- vironment. ALT-J18(1), 71–83 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    In: Proc

    Yan, L., Gasevic, D., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Zhao, L., Martinez-Maldonado, R.: From Complexity to Parsimony: Integrating Latent Class Analysis to Uncover Multimodal Learning Patterns in Collaborative Learning. In: Proc. of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowle...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.