Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Implicit Search Intent Recognition using EEG and Eye Tracking: Novel Dataset and Cross-User Prediction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2508.01860 v1 pith:T3KKAZYG submitted 2025-08-03 cs.HC cs.CV

Implicit Search Intent Recognition using EEG and Eye Tracking: Novel Dataset and Cross-User Prediction

classification cs.HC cs.CV
keywords searchintentpredictioneye-trackingfirstinformationaltargetuser
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

For machines to effectively assist humans in challenging visual search tasks, they must differentiate whether a human is simply glancing into a scene (navigational intent) or searching for a target object (informational intent). Previous research proposed combining electroencephalography (EEG) and eye-tracking measurements to recognize such search intents implicitly, i.e., without explicit user input. However, the applicability of these approaches to real-world scenarios suffers from two key limitations. First, previous work used fixed search times in the informational intent condition -- a stark contrast to visual search, which naturally terminates when the target is found. Second, methods incorporating EEG measurements addressed prediction scenarios that require ground truth training data from the target user, which is impractical in many use cases. We address these limitations by making the first publicly available EEG and eye-tracking dataset for navigational vs. informational intent recognition, where the user determines search times. We present the first method for cross-user prediction of search intents from EEG and eye-tracking recordings and reach 84.5% accuracy in leave-one-user-out evaluations -- comparable to within-user prediction accuracy (85.5%) but offering much greater flexibility

discussion (0)

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