Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ElectraSight: Smart Glasses with Fully Onboard Non-Invasive Eye Tracking Using Hybrid Contact and Contactless EOG

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ElectraSight claims that smart glasses with hybrid contact and contactless EOG electrodes can classify eye movements fully onboard, with 81% accuracy on ten classes and 92% on six, without calibration or per-user fine-tuning.

desk verdict A credible low-power EOG glasses system with a real hardware contribution, but the headline 'no calibration/user-specific fine-tuning' claim rests on a contradictory train/test split description that needs to be resolved before the accuracies are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14848 v1 pith:2Y5KPXZC submitted 2024-12-19 eess.SP

Nicolas Schärer , Federico Villani , Aishwarya Melatur , Steven Peter , Tommaso Polonelli , Michele Magno This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords smartglasseselectrooculography(EOG)QVarchargevariationsensingtinyMLeyemovementclassificationonboardprocessinglow-powerwearablehybridcontactandcontactlesselectrodes
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

ElectraSight aims to show that eye tracking can be done entirely on a pair of smart glasses, without cameras, without wet electrodes, and without per-user calibration. The paper claims that a hybrid electrooculography (hEOG) setup—two contact channels on the nose pads and temples plus three contactless channels around the eye—picks up the eye's corneo-retinal potential well enough for a tiny 79 kB neural network to classify ten eye movements at 81% accuracy, and 92% for six basic movements. If true, this would make continuous, private, low-power eye tracking practical for everyday glasses, at 8.85 mW average power and a three-day battery life on a 175 mAh cell. The central payoff is a plug-and-play wearable that turns eye movement into a control or health signal without the energy cost and privacy exposure of camera-based trackers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hybrid EOG (hEOG) front end: two galvanic contact channels at the nose pads and temples plus three contactless channels around the eye, all read by QVar sensors whose input impedance (up to 2.4 GΩ) keeps the attenuated contactless signal above the sensor noise floor. The signal chain is per-window standardization followed by a Savitzky–Golay filter, then a 1D-CNN with four convolutional layers (64 filters, kernel size 7) and transposed-convolution layers, trained on 416 ms windows and quantized from float32 to 4-bit (79 kB) without accuracy loss down to 4-bit. The quantized model executes on the GAP9 cluster at 370 MHz in 301 microseconds, enabling rolling-window inference with a 42 ms slide at 90% overlap.

What would settle it

A subject-holdout re-evaluation using independently annotated labels—for example, frame-by-frame video labeling of the same eye movements by a human annotator instead of gaze-derivative thresholds—would settle the claim. If the 81% ten-class and 92% six-class accuracies do not survive re-labeling, or if accuracy drops sharply when test subjects are completely excluded from training rather than sampled by acquisition split, the generalization claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fully onboard, calibration-free eye movement classifier can be built from hybrid contact and contactless electrooculography. Using charge-variation (QVar) sensors that measure quasi-electrostatic potential changes through a gigaohm-input differential front end, five channels capture the corneo-retinal potential through the glasses frame. A 1D convolutional network with 151,447 parameters, quantized to 4-bit precision and fitting in 79 kB, runs on a RISC-V GAP9 coprocessor at 301 microseconds per inference, achieving 81% accuracy on ten movement classes and 92% on six basic ones. The system also reports that 90% of movements are detected within 60 ms of onset and that the whole glasses draw 8.85 mW, allowing over three days of continuous use on a 175 mAh battery. Accuracy is measured against labels derived from a camera-based ground-truth eye tracker, using thresholds on the gaze derivative to mark movement timing.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracies and latencies stand or fall with the ground-truth labeling: labels come from manually chosen thresholds on the derivative of a camera-based reference eye tracker, and the paper itself notes that the logger-based labels are 4.6 times less accurate for rapid movements, so any bias in those thresholds would shift every accuracy and timing figure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Eye movement can become a hands-free control signal for AR interfaces, menu navigation, and assistive communication, generated locally on the glasses with no video leaving the device.
  • The 8.85 mW total consumption projects to more than three days of continuous operation on a 175 mAh battery, making all-day wearable eye tracking feasible.
  • Because the model is subject-agnostic and calibration-free, a user can put on the glasses and immediately get blink and gaze-direction classification, unlike systems that require per-user training.
  • With 90% of movements detected within 60 ms, the classification latency is short enough for real-time interaction and notification-style responses.
  • The 416 ms window with 90% overlap supports detection of several movements per second, matching the typical rate of human saccades.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The accuracy claims depend on the eye-tracker-derived labels; if the gaze-derivative thresholds mistime fast movements (the paper reports logger labels are 4.6 times less accurate for rapid movements), the confusion matrices and latencies would shift, and an independent manual annotation study on the same recordings would quantify this.
  • The reported 92% and 81% accuracies might transfer to everyday use only if the controlled screen-following protocol generalizes to natural gaze behavior; a field test with unstructured viewing would be a direct extension.
  • Because head motion and facial muscle artifacts couple into charge-variation channels, fusing the QVar signal with the onboard IMU could reject motion artifacts and possibly push accuracy beyond the current all-channels model.
  • The hybrid-channel ablation suggests contactless channels are indispensable for corner movements (relative accuracy drops from 91% to 50% without them), so exploring additional contactless electrode placements might improve the ten-class result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ElectraSight, a smart-glasses eye-tracking system that uses hybrid contact and contactless electrooculography (hEOG) with fully onboard processing on a GAP9 RISC-V coprocessor. The authors describe the hardware design, electrode placement, impedance characterization, a data-acquisition protocol with 20 subjects, and a labeling pipeline that combines logger timestamps with Pupil Labs Neon gaze data. They report a tinyML CNN that classifies 10 eye-movement classes with 81% accuracy and 6 basic classes with 92% accuracy, runs in 301 µs per inference, fits in 79 kB, and consumes 46 µJ per inference, with a total system power of 8.85 mW and an estimated three-day battery life. The paper also includes an ablation study of channel types, a window-size sweep, a quantization study, and a rolling-window latency analysis.

Significance. If the headline numbers are reproducible, ElectraSight is a meaningful step toward practical, non-invasive, calibration-free eye tracking for wearables. The work has several genuine strengths: the ground truth comes from an independent commercial eye tracker, the hardware is based on open-source components and is thoroughly characterized, the dataset includes 20 subjects with a defined protocol, and the quantization and deployment results are presented with concrete memory and energy figures. The main significance lies in demonstrating that hybrid contact/contactless EOG can achieve competitive classification accuracy with fully onboard tinyML inference at sub-milliwatt processing power. However, the evaluation-protocol ambiguity described below directly affects whether the central accuracy claims and the user-independence claim are supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VII-A and §VIII] The evaluation protocol for the final model is contradictory and underspecified. Section VII-A states that "Each acquisition is randomly assigned to either a training set (80% of all acquisitions) or a test set (20% of all acquisitions)" for the ablation study, whereas Section VIII claims that the 81% and 92% accuracies are "evaluated on subjects not encountered during training." These are incompatible protocols: a random acquisition-level split can place windows from the same subject in both training and test sets, and EOG morphology and electrode placement are subject-specific, so such leakage could inflate accuracy. The paper gives no subject count, subject IDs, or split ratio for the final model, so the reader cannot determine whether Figures 11a/11b, Table V, Table VI, and the latency results come from a subject-disjoint split. This is load-bearing because the abstract's claim of "not requiring any calibration or user-specific fine-tuning" is only supported by subject-independent evaluation. Please specify the exact split used for the final model, report subject-level or repeated-split statistics, and if the 81%/92% numbers came from the acquisition-level split, re-run the evaluation on a subject-disjoint split and restate the claims with the new results.
  2. [§VI-A, Eq. (2)] The ground-truth labeling depends on manually selected thresholds on the gaze derivative (Th_up: Elev' > 3, Th_down: Elev' < -3, Th_right: Az' > 2.5, Th_left: Az' < -2.5, Th_straight: -1 < Elev' and Az' < 1), chosen "based on manual inspection of the gaze derivative data." The same thresholds determine the movement timestamps used in the latency analysis of Section VIII-C. The paper itself notes that logger labels are 4.6 times less accurate than eye-tracker labels for rapid movements, which shows that the reported accuracy is sensitive to the labeling pipeline. However, no sensitivity analysis, threshold validation, or comparison against an alternative labeling rule is provided. Since every confusion matrix and latency figure is derived from labels produced by Eq. (2), the authors should justify the thresholds, quantify their stability (e.g., by perturbing them and recomputing accuracy), or provide an independent validation of the resulting labels.
  3. [Abstract and Table VI] The abstract reports "46 mJ for the tinyML inference," while Table VI and Section IX-B report 46 µJ. This is a factor of 1000 discrepancy in a headline energy claim. The 46 µJ figure is consistent with the stated average power of 153 mW and 301 µs execution (153 mW × 301 µs ≈ 46 µJ), so the abstract appears to contain a unit error, but as written it overstates energy consumption by three orders of magnitude. Please correct the abstract and check all other unit presentations (e.g., "8.85 mW" total power, "7.75 mW" acquisition) for consistency.
  4. [Table V and Table VI] All accuracy values are reported from a single train/test split with no confidence intervals or repeated-split variability. In Table V, the differences between window sizes (e.g., 84% at 1000 ms vs. 81% at 416 ms vs. 73% at 312 ms) are presented as if they are meaningful, but with a single split and no error bars it is impossible to judge whether these differences are statistically significant. Similarly, Table VI states that accuracy "remains constant down to 4-bit" (81% for 8-bit and float16, 80% for 4-bit), but the 1-point gap could be noise. Given the otherwise careful hardware and deployment work, the authors should report confidence intervals, multiple splits (e.g., k-fold or repeated random splits), or per-subject accuracy distributions for at least the final model and the key ablation comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Acknowledgments] There is a typo in the acknowledgment: "the anonymous people involved in the datasat collection" should read "dataset collection."
  2. [§II-A3] The sentence "An affordable system based on near-infrared (NIR) LED and phototransistors is presented in [24]" appears to cite the wrong reference. Reference [24] is an EOG processor paper (Das et al.), while the NIR system described in that paragraph corresponds to [28] (Guo et al., "A wearable non-contact optical system..."). Please fix the citation.
  3. [§VIII-C] The latency definition is stated somewhat ambiguously: "The latency for a movement is calculated if the movement is correctly predicted, and is equal to the difference between the timestamp of the end of the correctly predicted window, and the timestamp of the movement in the ground truth." Please clarify whether the end timestamp is the end of the window in which the movement is first detected or the end of the first window that yields the correct class; the subsequent sentence "only 1% of the test samples are never correctly predicted" should also specify how "never" is defined over the finite set of rolling windows.
  4. [§IX-B] The text says "Live inference, as explained in Section VII, requires overlapping windows," but Section VII covers EOG signal evaluation and the ablation study; the rolling-window live inference procedure is described in Section VIII-C. Please reference the correct section.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says "with N standing for Negative movements," but the figure labels such as "N-R" and "N-UL" are not explicitly defined in the text. Please explain the notation (presumably movements back to the center) in the caption or in Section VI-A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central accuracy and latency claims are benchmarked against an external eye tracker, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central accuracy claims (81% for 10 classes, 92% for 6 classes) are measured against the Pupil Labs Neon camera-based eye tracker, an external commercial ground-truth device that is independent of the hEOG QVar signals being classified. Labels are generated from fixed, manually selected thresholds on the gaze derivative (Eq. 2), and the CNN is trained and tested on windows carrying those labels; this is a standard supervised evaluation pipeline, not a self-definitional construction, because the target labels come from a different sensing modality than the model's input features. The hardware uses the open-source VitalCore platform from the same group [40], and several related QVar applications are self-citations, but those citations describe the physical platform and prior sensing use cases; none of them generates the reported accuracy, latency, or power numbers. Quantization and deployment on the GAP9 are re-evaluated on a held-out test set (Table VI), again against the eye-tracker-derived labels. There is an internal inconsistency between the random acquisition-level split in Section VII-A and the 'subjects not encountered during training' claim in Section VIII, which is a potential data-leakage and correctness risk for the subject-independence assertion, but it is not a case of a prediction being equivalent to its input by construction. No circular step is exhibited in the derivation chain, so a score of 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the central claim is an empirical system result. It does rely on externally supplied ground truth, a manual labeling threshold set, and several hyperparameters selected on the same data, all listed above.

free parameters (6)
  • Gaze-labeling thresholds = Th_up=3, Th_down=-3, Th_right=2.5, Th_left=-2.5, Th_straight between -1 and 1
    Section VI-A, Eq. (2): chosen by manual inspection of gaze derivatives; all class labels and timestamps used for training and evaluation depend on them.
  • Savitzky-Golay polynomial order = 20
    Section VII, selected heuristically; every standardized input window is smoothed with this parameter before classification.
  • Input window size = 416 ms (100 samples per channel)
    Section VIII-A, chosen after a window-size sweep in Table V; balances accuracy and number of detectable movements per second.
  • Rolling-window stride = 8 ms (2 samples)
    Section VIII-C, used in the latency simulation; the '90% within 60 ms' result depends on this stride.
  • Quantization bit-width = 4-bit
    Section VIII-D, Table VI; selected for the accuracy/energy trade-off, giving 80% accuracy, 79 kB model size, and 46 uJ per inference.
  • Electrode placement and QVar input impedance = five channels, 2.4 GOhm input impedance
    Section IV and III-C; placement is described as a result of empirical field experiments, and the highest impedance setting is used after characterization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Corneo-retinal potential is the dominant physiological source and has amplitude 250-1000 uV with 0.5-30 Hz bandwidth (ISCEV standard [39]).
    Used in Section III-A and III-C to justify that QVar contactless electrodes can perceive EOG-scale signals.
  • domain assumption PL Neon camera eye-tracker with 1.8 degree accuracy is a valid ground truth for labeling eight directional eye movements and blinks.
    Section V-B and VI; if gaze error or frame delay is large relative to movement size, labels and timestamps can be systematically wrong.
  • domain assumption The equivalent circuit model in Figure 2, with measured R and C values in Table III, accurately represents the sensor-frame-body interface.
    Section III-C; attenuation estimates derived from this model are used to argue the feasibility of contactless EOG.
  • domain assumption A fixed 80/20 data split and 20 subjects are representative enough to support the no-calibration cross-user claim.
    Section VII-A and VIII; no cross-validation or per-user generalization study is reported, and the text alternates between acquisition-level and subject-level splits.
  • ad hoc to paper Subjects following a screen-based protocol with minimized body movement approximate real-world glasses use.
    Section V-A; the field deployment and daily-use claims rely on this approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ElectraSight: Smart Glasses with Fully Onboard Non-Invasive Eye Tracking Using Hybrid Contact and Contactless EOG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2Y5KPXZC

@misc{pith2026241214848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ElectraSight: Smart Glasses with Fully Onboard Non-Invasive Eye Tracking Using Hybrid Contact and Contactless EOG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2Y5KPXZC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14848}
}
read the original abstract

Smart glasses with integrated eye tracking technology are revolutionizing diverse fields, from immersive augmented reality experiences to cutting-edge health monitoring solutions. However, traditional eye tracking systems rely heavily on cameras and significant computational power, leading to high-energy demand and privacy issues. Alternatively, systems based on electrooculography (EOG) provide superior battery life but are less accurate and primarily effective for detecting blinks, while being highly invasive. The paper introduces ElectraSight, a non-invasive plug-and-play low-power eye tracking system for smart glasses. The hardware-software co-design of the system is detailed, along with the integration of a hybrid EOG (hEOG) solution that incorporates both contact and contactless electrodes. Within 79 kB of memory, the proposed tinyML model performs real-time eye movement classification with 81% accuracy for 10 classes and 92% for 6 classes, not requiring any calibration or user-specific fine-tuning. Experimental results demonstrate that ElectraSight delivers high accuracy in eye movement and blink classification, with minimal overall movement detection latency (90% within 60 ms) and an ultra-low computing time (301 {\mu}s). The power consumption settles down to 7.75 mW for continuous data acquisition and 46 mJ for the tinyML inference. This efficiency enables continuous operation for over 3 days on a compact 175 mAh battery. This work opens new possibilities for eye tracking in commercial applications, offering an unobtrusive solution that enables advancements in user interfaces, health diagnostics, and hands-free control systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Corneo-retinal potential, typically spanning between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Equivalent model of sensor - body interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Logical block diagram (a) and 3D exploded view (b) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3D model of the final prototype. The electronics are on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dataset acquisition setup A. Protocol The prototype depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Experimental setup description of the five differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example raw (blue) and Savitzky-Golay-filtered (cyan) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: t-SNE plots (top row) and confusion matrices (bottom row) for different configurations in channels (ch.) and classes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Architecture of the 1D-CNN model utilized in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Latency from the start of the movement to the model’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized confusion matrices of the two full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.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. VergeIO: Depth-Aware Eye Interaction on Glasses

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With dry electrodes on a glasses frame, VergeIO classifies vergence shifts among 30, 70, and 200 cm at 82.7% accuracy for six gestures and up to 97.4% for a four-gesture subset, without per-user calibration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Internet of Things for Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multimodal Machine Learning Approach Based on Eye Movement Features,

    Y . Yin, H. Wang, S. Liu, J. Sun, P. Jing, and Y . Liu, “Internet of Things for Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multimodal Machine Learning Approach Based on Eye Movement Features,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 13, pp. 11 476–11 485, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10044924/

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Aim Where You Look: Eye-Tracking-Based UA V Control Framework for Automatic Target Aiming,

    M. Yang, J. Wang, Y . Gao, and B. Hu, “Aim Where You Look: Eye-Tracking-Based UA V Control Framework for Automatic Target Aiming,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 21 250–21 260, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee. org/document/10504626/

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Eye tracking algorithms, techniques, tools, and applications with an emphasis on machine learning and Internet of Things technologies,

    A. F. Klaib, N. O. Alsrehin, W. Y . Melhem, H. O. Bashtawi, and A. A. Magableh, “Eye tracking algorithms, techniques, tools, and applications with an emphasis on machine learning and Internet of Things technologies,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 166, p. 114037, Mar. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S09574...

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Stress Detection Using Context-Aware Sensor Fusion From Wearable Devices,

    N. Rashid, T. Mortlock, and M. A. A. Faruque, “Stress Detection Using Context-Aware Sensor Fusion From Wearable Devices,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 16, pp. 14 114–14 127, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10097874/

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    AirMouse: Turning a Pair of Glasses Into a Mouse in the Air,

    Z. Wang, Y . Li, B. Jin, Q. Wang, Y . Feng, Y . Li, and H. Shao, “AirMouse: Turning a Pair of Glasses Into a Mouse in the Air,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 7473–7483, Oct. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8648199/

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    DEyeAuth: A Secure Smartphone User Authentication System Integrating Eyelid Patterns With Eye Gestures,

    L. Kuang, F. Zeng, H. Jiang, D. Liu, J. Li, H. Zheng, Q. Zhang, and G. Min, “DEyeAuth: A Secure Smartphone User Authentication System Integrating Eyelid Patterns With Eye Gestures,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 11, no. 18, pp. 30 069–30 083, Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10543044/

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A Framework on the Development of an IoT Based Eye Tracking Device: A review study,

    A. M. J. Gutierrez and M. Cabatuan, “A Framework on the Development of an IoT Based Eye Tracking Device: A review study,” in 2021 IEEE 13th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and Management (HNICEM) . Manila, Philippines: IEEE, Nov. 2021, pp. 1–6. [Online]. Available: https...

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    An IoT and Wearables-Based Smart Home for ALS Patients,

    X. Chen, Z. Fu, Z. Song, L. Yang, A. M. Ndifon, Z. Su, Z. Liu, and S. Gao, “An IoT and Wearables-Based Smart Home for ALS Patients,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 21, pp. 20 945–20 956, Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9777756/

    work page arXiv 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Bionic blink improves real-time eye closure in unilateral facial paralysis,

    M. Cervera-Negueruela, L. Chee, A. Cimolato, G. Valle, M. Tschopp, M. Menke, A. Papazoglou, and S. Raspopovic, “Bionic blink improves real-time eye closure in unilateral facial paralysis,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 026020, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    A review on the performance of brain-computer interface systems used for patients with locked-in and completely locked-in syndrome,

    S. Rezvani, S. H. Hosseini-Zahraei, A. Tootchi, C. Guger, Y . Chaibakhsh, A. Saberi, and A. Chaibakhsh, “A review on the performance of brain-computer interface systems used for patients with locked-in and completely locked-in syndrome,” Cognitive Neurodynamics, vol. 18, no. 4...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Real-Time Eye Tracking for Bare and Sunglasses- Wearing Faces for Augmented Reality 3D Head-Up Displays,

    D. Kang and L. Ma, “Real-Time Eye Tracking for Bare and Sunglasses- Wearing Faces for Augmented Reality 3D Head-Up Displays,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 125 508–125 522, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9530401/

    2021

  4. [12]

    H-Watch: An Open, Connected Platform for AI-Enhanced COVID19 Infection Symptoms Monitoring and Contact Tracing,

    T. Polonelli, L. Schulthess, P. Mayer, M. Magno, and L. Benini, “H-Watch: An Open, Connected Platform for AI-Enhanced COVID19 Infection Symptoms Monitoring and Contact Tracing,” in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) . Daegu, Korea: IEEE, May 2021...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Human–Computer Interaction Cognitive Behavior Modeling of Command and Control Systems,

    N. Li, X. Chen, Y . Feng, and J. Huang, “Human–Computer Interaction Cognitive Behavior Modeling of Command and Control Systems,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 14, pp. 12 723–12 736, Jul. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9662433/

    2022

  6. [14]

    Online Learning of Wearable Sensing for Human Activity Recognition,

    Y . Zhang, B. Gao, D. Yang, W. L. Woo, and H. Wen, “Online Learning of Wearable Sensing for Human Activity Recognition,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 23, pp. 24 315–24 327, Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9816056/

    2022

  7. [15]

    Toward a Systematic Survey on Wearable Computing for Education Applications,

    W. Gao, T. Wei, H. Huang, X. Chen, and Q. Li, “Toward a Systematic Survey on Wearable Computing for Education Applications,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 15, pp. 12 901–12 915, Aug. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9759468/

    2022

  8. [16]

    A Review of Main Eye Movement Tracking Methods,

    Z. Li, P. Guo, and C. Song, “A Review of Main Eye Movement Tracking Methods,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series , vol. 1802, no. 4, p. 042066, Mar. 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1802/4/042066

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    High Precision Eye Tracking Based on Electrooculography (EOG) Signal Using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for Smart Technology Application,

    M. M. Alam, M. M. S. Raihan, M. R. Chowdhury, and A. B. Shams, “High Precision Eye Tracking Based on Electrooculography (EOG) Signal Using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for Smart Technology Application,” in 2021 24th International Conference on Computer and Information Techn...

    2021

  10. [18]

    GAPses: Versatile smart glasses for comfortable and fully-dry acquisition and parallel ultra-low-power processing of EEG and EOG,

    S. Frey, M. A. Lucchini, V . Kartsch, T. M. Ingolfsson, A. H. Bernardi, M. Segessenmann, J. Osieleniec, S. Benatti, L. Benini, and A. Cossettini, “GAPses: Versatile smart glasses for comfortable and fully-dry acquisition and parallel ultra-low-power processing of EEG and EOG,”...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ultra-Efficient On-Device Object Detection on AI-Integrated Smart Glasses with TinyissimoYOLO,

    J. Moosmann, P. Bonazzi, Y . Li, S. Bian, P. Mayer, L. Benini, and M. Magno, “Ultra-Efficient On-Device Object Detection on AI-Integrated Smart Glasses with TinyissimoYOLO,” 2023, version Number: 2. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01057

    2023

  12. [20]

    Retina : Low-Power Eye Tracking with Event Camera and Spiking Hardware,

    P. Bonazzi, S. Bian, G. Lippolis, Y . Li, S. Sheik, and M. Magno, “Retina : Low-Power Eye Tracking with Event Camera and Spiking Hardware,” Apr. 2024, arXiv:2312.00425 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00425

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Multi-Sensor Eye-Tracking Systems and Tools for Capturing Student Attention and Understanding Engagement in Learning: A Review,

    Y . Wang, S. Lu, and D. Harter, “Multi-Sensor Eye-Tracking Systems and Tools for Capturing Student Attention and Understanding Engagement in Learning: A Review,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 21, no. 20, pp. 22 402–22 413, Oct. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee....

    2021

  14. [22]

    Convolutional Neural Network- Based Methods for Eye Gaze Estimation: A Survey,

    A. A. Akinyelu and P. Blignaut, “Convolutional Neural Network- Based Methods for Eye Gaze Estimation: A Survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 142 581–142 605, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9153754/

    2020

  15. [23]

    RAMAN: A Reconfigurable and Sparse tinyML Accelerator for Inference on Edge,

    A. Krishna, S. Rohit Nudurupati, D. G. Chandana, P. Dwivedi, A. Van Schaik, M. Mehendale, and C. S. Thakur, “RAMAN: A Reconfigurable and Sparse tinyML Accelerator for Inference on Edge,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 11, no. 14, pp. 24 831–24 845, Jul. 2024. [Online]....

    2024

  16. [24]

    EOG Signal Processor: An SVM-based Multiclass Classifier to Detect Eye Movements,

    D. Das, M. H. Chowdhury, A. Chowdhury, Q. D. Hossain, and R. C. C. Cheung, “EOG Signal Processor: An SVM-based Multiclass Classifier to Detect Eye Movements,” Journal of Signal Processing Systems , Oct

  17. [25]

    Eye Tracking in Virtual Reality: a Broad Review of Applications and Challenges,

    I. B. Adhanom, P. MacNeilage, and E. Folmer, “Eye Tracking in Virtual Reality: a Broad Review of Applications and Challenges,” Virtual Reality , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1481–1505, Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10055-022-00738-z

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    GazeTrak: Exploring Acoustic-based Eye Tracking on a Glass Frame,

    K. Li, R. Zhang, B. Chen, S. Chen, S. Yin, S. Mahmud, Q. Liang, F. Guimbretiere, and C. Zhang, “GazeTrak: Exploring Acoustic-based Eye Tracking on a Glass Frame,” in Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking , ser. ACM MobiCom ’...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Eye tracking and eye expression decoding based on transparent, flexible and ultra-persistent electrostatic interface,

    Y . Shi, P. Yang, R. Lei, Z. Liu, X. Dong, X. Tao, X. Chu, Z. L. Wang, and X. Chen, “Eye tracking and eye expression decoding based on transparent, flexible and ultra-persistent electrostatic interface,” Nature Communications , vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3315, Jun. 2023, publisher: Na...

    2023

  20. [28]

    A wearable non-contact optical system based on muscle tracking for ultra-long-term and indirect eye-tracking,

    L. Guo, D. Babekuhl, R. Orr, and O. Kavehei, “A wearable non-contact optical system based on muscle tracking for ultra-long-term and indirect eye-tracking,” in 2024 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET , Jul. 2024, pp. 1–10. [Online]...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Review of Eye Tracking Metrics Involved in 15 Emotional and Cognitive Processes,

    V . Skaramagkas, G. Giannakakis, E. Ktistakis, D. Manousos, I. Karatzanis, N. Tachos, E. Tripoliti, K. Marias, D. I. Fotiadis, and M. Tsiknakis, “Review of Eye Tracking Metrics Involved in 15 Emotional and Cognitive Processes,” IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 16, ...

    2023

  22. [30]

    What Does Your Gaze Reveal About You? On the Privacy Implications of Eye Tracking,

    J. L. Kr ¨oger, O. H.-M. Lutz, and F. M ¨uller, “What Does Your Gaze Reveal About You? On the Privacy Implications of Eye Tracking,” in Privacy and Identity Management. Data for Better Living: AI and Privacy: 14th IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6/11.7, 11.6/SIG 9.2.2 International Summer Scho...

    2019

  23. [31]

    A comparison of EOG baseline drift mitigation techniques,

    N. Barbara, T. A. Camilleri, and K. P. Camilleri, “A comparison of EOG baseline drift mitigation techniques,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 57, p. 101738, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809419303192

    2020

  24. [32]

    Comparison of classification techniques for the control of EOG-based HCIs,

    A. L ´opez, J. R. Villar, M. Fern ´andez, and F. J. Ferrero, “Comparison of classification techniques for the control of EOG-based HCIs,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 80, p. 104263, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ artic...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Innovative Airspeed Sensing Based on a Micromachined Sensor,

    V . Di Fiore, C. Conte, V . Bottino, D. Accardo, G. Rufino, G. de Alteriis, F. Passaniti, D. Patti, and D. Sanfilippo, “Innovative Airspeed Sensing Based on a Micromachined Sensor,” in 2023 IEEE 10th International Workshop on Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace), Jun. 2023...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Realtime Hand-Gesture Recognition Based on Novel Charge Variation Sensor and IMU,

    E. Reinschmidt, C. V ogt, and M. Magno, “Realtime Hand-Gesture Recognition Based on Novel Charge Variation Sensor and IMU,” in 2022 IEEE Sensors . Dallas, TX, USA: IEEE, Oct. 2022, pp. 1–4. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9967346/

    2022

  27. [35]

    Towards Enhanced Bladder V olume Measurement with Context-Aware Bio-Impedance Sensor Fusion,

    K. Dheman, M. Glahn, and M. Magno, “Towards Enhanced Bladder V olume Measurement with Context-Aware Bio-Impedance Sensor Fusion,” in 2023 IEEE SENSORS , Oct. 2023, pp. 1–4, iSSN: 2168-

    2023

  28. [36]

    TinyBird-ML: An ultra-low Power Smart Sensor Node for Bird V ocalization Analysis and Syllable Classification,

    L. Schulthess, S. Marty, M. Dirodi, M. D. Rocha, L. R ¨uttimann, R. H. R. Hahnloser, and M. Magno, “TinyBird-ML: An ultra-low Power Smart Sensor Node for Bird V ocalization Analysis and Syllable Classification,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISC...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Long-Term Polygraphic Monitoring through MEMS and Charge Transfer for Low-Power Wearable Applications,

    A. Manoni, A. Gumiero, A. Zampogna, C. Ciarlo, L. Panetta, A. Suppa, L. Della Torre, and F. Irrera, “Long-Term Polygraphic Monitoring through MEMS and Charge Transfer for Low-Power Wearable Applications,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 7, p. 2566, Jan. 2022, number: 7 Publisher: Multid...

    2022

  30. [38]

    CMOS based capacitive sensors for life science applications: A review,

    S. Forouhi, R. Dehghani, and E. Ghafar-Zadeh, “CMOS based capacitive sensors for life science applications: A review,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical , vol. 297, p. 111531, Oct. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924424719306831

    2019

  31. [39]

    ISCEV Standard for Clinical Electro-oculography (EOG) 2006,

    M. Brown, M. Marmor, Vaegan, E. Zrenner, M. Brigell, and M. Bach, “ISCEV Standard for Clinical Electro-oculography (EOG) 2006,” Documenta Ophthalmologica. Advances in Ophthalmology , vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 205–212, Nov. 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc...

    2006

  32. [40]

    TinyssimoRadar: In-Ear Hand Gesture Recognition with Ultra-Low Power mmWave Radars,

    A. Ronco, P. Schilk, and M. Magno, “TinyssimoRadar: In-Ear Hand Gesture Recognition with Ultra-Low Power mmWave Radars,” in 2024 IEEE/ACM Ninth International Conference on Internet-of- Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI) . Hong Kong, Hong Kong: IEEE, May 2024, pp. 192–202...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Multi- Channel Soft Dry Electrodes for Electrocardiography Acquisition in the Ear Region,

    P. van der Heijden, C. Gilbert, S. Jafari, and M. A. Lucchini, “Multi- Channel Soft Dry Electrodes for Electrocardiography Acquisition in the Ear Region,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 2, p. 420, Jan. 2024, number: 2 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. [Online]....

    2024

  34. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11265-024-01936-5

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11265-024-01936-5

    doi

  35. [9229]

    Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/ 10325191

    [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/ 10325191

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.