Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

earEOG via Periauricular Electrodes to Facilitate Eye Tracking in a Natural Headphone Form Factor

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Headphone electrodes can track horizontal eye movements without face contact.

desk verdict Solid feasibility study with an honest negative result for vertical tracking, but the headline correlations are weaker than they look: the only independent camera evidence is modest (r=0.56) and the r=0.99 saccade claim comes from six aggregate points. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07193 v2 pith:HRA5I2VB submitted 2025-06-08 cs.HC

Tobias King , Michael Knierim , Philipp Lepold , Christopher Clarke , Hans Gellersen , Michael Beigl , Tobias Röddiger This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords electrooculographyearEOGperiauricularelectrodesheadphoneeyetrackingsmoothpursuitmovementssaccadesgazeestimationwearable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a systematic test of whether eye movements can be read from electrodes placed around the ears inside an ordinary headphone. With 14 periauricular electrodes and 16 participants, the best horizontal montage—electrode L8 on the left ear against R8 on the right ear—correlated at $r=0.81$ with reference face EOG and at $r=0.56$ with a camera eye tracker during smooth pursuits, and its saccade-related voltage deflections correlated at $r=0.99$ with reference EOG. Vertical eye movements were not captured reliably: the best vertical pair reached only $r=0.28$ against reference EOG and $r=0.35$ against the camera. If these numbers hold, unobtrusive horizontal-only gaze sensing in everyday headphones is within reach, while vertical gaze would need a different electrode arrangement.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the ocular dipole: the cornea is positively charged relative to the retina, so as the eye rotates the electric field at the surface shifts, and electrodes around the ear pick up that shifting potential. The specific object that carries the argument is the L8-R8 bipolar montage—the voltage difference between the two periauricular electrodes nearest the eyes on opposite ears—which encodes horizontal gaze. Smooth pursuits, because they produce a continuous signal rather than a sharp transient, are used to select the best electrode pairs by correlation, and saccade voltage deflections then supply the amplitude-to-angle mapping used for gaze-angle prediction.

What would settle it

Record earEOG from the L8-R8 pair while participants keep their eyes fixed on a stationary point but move their heads, or while they make saccades with eyes closed; if large voltage deflections persist in either condition, the signal is not purely ocular and the horizontal-tracking claim fails. A second decisive check: run the same protocol with head movements unconstrained and compare L8-R8 predictions to a high-precision camera tracker; if the correlation falls well below the reported $r=0.56$, the fixed-head assumption is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the horizontal component of the ocular dipole—the rotating corneal-retinal potential that shifts with gaze direction—is measurable at the ears with enough fidelity to support eye tracking in a headphone form factor. The bipolar montage L8-R8, which takes the difference between the left and right electrodes closest to the eyes at roughly eye level, outperformed all other pairs for horizontal smooth pursuits, reaching $r=0.81$ against gold-standard EOG and $r=0.56$ against camera-based gaze. Horizontal saccade amplitudes were encoded linearly in voltage deflections, with correlations of $r=0.99$ to reference EOG for both leftward and rightward saccades, and a regression model predicted absolute saccade angle with a mean absolute error of $4.34^\circ \pm 3.99^\circ$. Vertical tracking did not survive the same tests: the best vertical montage L1-L8 gave only weak smooth-pursuit correlations and inconsistent vertical saccade waveforms. The authors conclude that horizontal earEOG is feasible in this setup and that vertical earEOG is not.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gold-standard EOG signal, recorded from electrodes glued around one eye, is a valid reference for gaze; because earEOG and that reference both measure the same ocular dipole, the high correlations between them do not by themselves prove gaze accuracy, leaving the camera benchmark ($r=0.56$) as the only independent check of the central claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Consumer headphones could gain a horizontal-only eye tracker without facial electrodes or cameras, since the best montage requires only two contact points near the front of each ear.
  • Saccade-based applications can exploit the linear voltage-deflection-to-angle relationship reported at $r=0.99$, with an expected angle error near $4.3^\circ$ when using an uncalibrated one-fits-all model.
  • Any product built on this result should restrict itself to horizontal gaze or add a different sensing modality, because vertical tracking was weakly correlated in every configuration tested.
  • The identified electrode pairs, L8-R8 for horizontal and L1-L8 for vertical, give concrete placement guidance for future periauricular electrode arrays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the camera correlation of $r=0.56$ is likely a floor for true performance, since the camera and EOG streams were not perfectly time-aligned and the EOG signal was lag-adjusted; better synchronization might raise the reported accuracy.
  • Editorial inference: the vertical failure may be a geometric limitation of electrodes on the outer ear—vertical dipole components project weakly onto that ring—so moving contacts higher on the temple or onto the mastoid could recover vertical tracking rather than requiring face electrodes.
  • Editorial inference: a per-user calibration step, which prior single-user headphone work used, could plausibly cut the $4.34^\circ$ error well below the one-fits-all model reported here.
  • Editorial inference: if horizontal earEOG proves robust under free head and body motion, it enables attention-aware audio, hands-free menu selection, and vestibular screening in settings where a camera cannot see the eyes.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a 16-participant laboratory evaluation of a custom headphone integrating periauricular electrodes for EOG-based eye tracking. The authors compare earEOG signals against gold-standard periocular EOG and a stationary camera eye tracker across smooth-pursuit and saccade tasks, identify optimal electrode montages, and train a leave-one-subject-out regression to predict horizontal saccade amplitude. The central claim is that horizontal eye movements can be tracked with reasonable fidelity using earEOG in a headphone form factor (best smooth-pursuit correlation r_EOG = 0.81, r_CAM = 0.56 for montage L8-R8; saccade voltage-deflection correlation r = 0.99; gaze-angle prediction MAE 4.34 degrees), while vertical eye movements cannot be tracked reliably in this setup.

Significance. If the horizontal result holds, the paper would provide a useful, more wearable alternative to in-ear EOG and camera-based eye tracking for applications such as attention-aware headphones, sleep/fatigue monitoring, and gaze-based interaction. The contribution is strengthened by the evaluation across 16 participants, the systematic comparison of electrode montages with statistical post-hoc tests, the use of leave-one-subject-out cross-validation for the regression model, and the explicit reporting of the vertical-axis failure. However, the independent evidence for the headline horizontal claim is weaker than the reported correlations suggest: the strongest independent benchmark is a camera correlation of r = 0.56 that is computed with an allowed lag of up to 500 ms, and the r = 0.99 saccade result is based on six aggregate group means of two EOG signals that share the same ocular dipole and signal-processing chain. The practical feasibility claim therefore requires additional independent validation, not merely higher correlation with gold-standard EOG.

major comments (3)
  1. [Data Analysis, Smooth Pursuit Analysis] The camera-based smooth-pursuit correlation r_CAM = 0.56 is the only benchmark that does not share the ocular dipole with earEOG, but its validity depends on how the allowed lag of up to 64 samples (about 500 ms) was handled. The manuscript states that up to 64 samples were allowed for EOG-to-eye-tracker correlations but does not state whether the lag was fixed in advance, estimated once from calibration, or selected per participant/trial to maximize the correlation. At stimulus frequencies of 0.33, 0.5, and 1 Hz, 500 ms is a substantial fraction of a cycle, so if the lag was chosen to maximize r, the reported r_CAM is optimistically biased. The authors should report the lag-selection procedure and the distribution of chosen lags, or replace the maximum-correlation search with a fixed alignment or cross-validated latency estimate.
  2. [Saccade Amplitudes and Corresponding EOG Voltage Deflections, Figure 5] The r = 0.99 correlations for horizontal saccade voltage deflections are computed from six points, each representing the group mean voltage deflection at one visual angle (2.5 to 15 degrees), separately for left and right directions. This establishes only that the group-mean earEOG amplitude grows linearly with the group-mean gold-standard EOG amplitude across six stimulus levels; it does not quantify per-saccade tracking fidelity or participant-level consistency. Moreover, both signals measure the same ocular dipole through the same ADC and filtering pipeline, so a high correlation of deflections is partly expected. The authors should report per-saccade correlations (e.g., across all 565 saccades) and, ideally, per-participant correlations, and should validate saccade amplitude against the camera eye tracker rather than only against gold-standard EOG.
  3. [Gaze Angle Prediction, Table 6] The leave-one-subject-out regression MAE of 4.34 degrees (earEOG) versus 2.68 degrees (gold-standard EOG) is the strongest functional evidence that earEOG carries information about horizontal gaze amplitude, but it is presented as a secondary result and is not directly validated against the camera ground truth. The Bland-Altman plot in Figure 7 compares the earEOG model predictions with the gold-standard EOG model predictions, not with the camera-based gaze angles; agreement between two EOG-derived models is partly tautological. The authors should report the camera-based per-participant prediction errors, the regression coefficients and their variance across cross-validation folds, and the per-participant distribution of errors (not only the aggregated mean and standard deviation). This would clarify how much of the 4.34-degree error is due to individual differences in electrode placement and signal amplitude.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Methods, Apparatus] The abstract states that 14 electrodes were positioned around the ears, while the Methods section mentions 16 gold-plated electrodes per ear and also describes a 14-channel setup with 7 channels per ear; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'siginificant', 'gold-startard', 'singal', 'smoot pursuits', 'conduced', 'exisiting', and 'V oltage'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Results, Saccade Amplitudes] Correlations are reported as r = 0.99, p = 0.0; p-values should be reported as p < 0.001 or with an explicit minimum, since a p-value of exactly 0.0 is not a meaningful statistical statement.
  4. [Results, Gaze Angle Prediction] What is captioned as 'Figure 6' is a table of mean absolute errors; the in-text reference should be to Table 6 or the caption should be changed to reflect the element type.
  5. [Methods, Data Collection Procedure] The task order was not counterbalanced across participants; this should be acknowledged as a potential order-effect confound in the Limitations section, since fatigue or learning could influence the later tasks.
  6. [Data and Code Availability] The statement that data and code are 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is not sufficient for reproducibility; a public repository with the analysis scripts and de-identified data would substantially strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasibility claim rests on an independent camera benchmark, and the gaze-angle regression is evaluated with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation against eye-tracker labels.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical study with no formal derivation chain, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The only potentially circular concern is that earEOG and gold-standard EOG both measure the ocular dipole from the same recording setup, making high correlations partly expected. However, the paper does not rely exclusively on that comparison: it reports correlations to a camera-based eye tracker (r_CAM = 0.56 for the best horizontal montage) and trains the saccade-angle regression using eye-tracker gaze-angle labels, evaluated with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. The r = 0.99 saccade voltage-deflection correlations are descriptive comparisons between two EOG montages rather than fitted predictions, and the optical benchmark is external and unfitted. The self-citations to prior work by co-authors (e.g., Bulling et al. for EOG activity recognition, Vidal et al. for pursuits) are background references and are not load-bearing for the central claim. Concerns about the 500 ms lag search inflating r_CAM or about aggregate group-mean correlations are statistical validity issues, not circularity. No step reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing same-source EOG comparison rather than any circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim depends on standard EOG physics and on the chosen preprocessing and benchmark assumptions; the regression model adds fitted coefficients, and the correlation lag windows are hand-tuned.

free parameters (3)
  • Correlation lag windows = up to 12 samples (~100 ms) for EOG-EOG; up to 64 samples (~500 ms) for EOG-camera
    The maximum lag allowed when computing correlations is chosen by hand and may inflate the reported r values by aligning signals across a wide window.
  • Regression coefficients for gaze-angle prediction = not reported
    Linear regression model fitted to saccade voltage deflections to predict gaze angle; coefficients are data-fitted parameters, though evaluation uses leave-one-subject-out cross-validation.
  • Filter parameters = bandpass 0.1-15 Hz (5th-order Butterworth); mean filter length 50
    Preprocessing parameters chosen by the authors to maximize signal quality; different choices could alter correlation magnitudes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption EOG signals originate from the ocular dipole and propagate to periauricular electrode sites with a consistent relationship to gaze angle.
    Entire method assumes that the voltage measured around the ear reflects eye position; this is the foundational premise of the study.
  • domain assumption Gold-standard EOG and Tobii eyeX camera provide accurate ground-truth gaze.
    Used as benchmarks throughout; the paper does not independently validate these references.
  • domain assumption Head position remains approximately fixed during tasks.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation; if head moves, the EOG signal is contaminated, affecting correlations.
  • domain assumption The 0.1-15 Hz bandpass and mean filtering preserve the eye-movement-related signal while removing artifacts.
    Chosen based on prior work; no validation that these parameters do not distort saccade or pursuit signals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of earEOG via Periauricular Electrodes to Facilitate Eye Tracking in a Natural Headphone Form Factor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRA5I2VB

@misc{pith2026250607193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: earEOG via Periauricular Electrodes to Facilitate Eye Tracking in a Natural Headphone Form Factor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRA5I2VB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07193}
}
abstract

Eye tracking technology is frequently utilized to diagnose eye and neurological disorders, assess sleep and fatigue, study human visual perception, and enable novel gaze-based interaction methods. However, traditional eye tracking methodologies are constrained by bespoke hardware that is often cumbersome to wear, complex to apply, and demands substantial computational resources. To overcome these limitations, we investigated Electrooculography (EOG) eye tracking using 14 electrodes positioned around the ears, integrated into a custom-built headphone form factor device. In a controlled experiment, 16 participants tracked stimuli designed to induce smooth pursuits and saccades. Data analysis identified optimal electrode pairs for vertical and horizontal eye movement tracking, benchmarked against gold-standard EOG and camera-based methods. The electrode montage nearest the eyes yielded the best horizontal results. Horizontal smooth pursuits via earEOG showed high correlation with gold-standard measures ($r_{\mathrm{EOG}} = 0.81, p = 0.01$; $r_{\mathrm{CAM}} = 0.56, p = 0.02$), while vertical pursuits were weakly correlated ($r_{\mathrm{EOG}} = 0.28, p = 0.04$; $r_{\mathrm{CAM}} = 0.35, p = 0.05$). Voltage deflections when performing saccades showed strong correlation in the horizontal direction ($r_{\mathrm{left}} = 0.99, p = 0.0$; $r_{\mathrm{right}} = 0.99, p = 0.0$) but low correlation in the vertical direction ($r_{\mathrm{up}} = 0.6, p = 0.23$; $r_{\mathrm{down}} = 0.19, p = 0.73$). Overall, horizontal earEOG demonstrated strong performance, indicating its potential effectiveness, while vertical earEOG results were poor, suggesting limited feasibility in our current setup.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07193 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of earEOG headphones showing the electrode positions and study apparatus. 1a The EOG headphones have a standard headphone form factor with 16 gold-plated electrodes (copper base) on each ear (One reference (R) and one Ground (G) electrode). The left headphone includes the Cyton Board while the right headphone includes the battery; 1b Schematic drawing showing the positioning of the electrodes around the ear… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the different gaze stimuli and tasks presented to study participants. 2a 1D smooth pursuit points in horizontal and vertical directions with opening angles of 2.5° to 15°; 2b visual target moving on a straight line with simple harmonic motion that is shown to participants to elicit smooth pursuit eye motion; 2c fixations points in four cardinal directions with 2.5° increments and center resting point; 2d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of earEOG electrode montages to gold-standard EOG and camera-based eye tracking. 3a Correlations of pairwise electrode montages with gold-standard hEOG revealing that electrodes closer to the ears and at eye level yield higher correlations than electrodes on one ear or farther away from eye level; 3b Statistical tests showing p-values for pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with respect to gold-standard E… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The figure displays the fixation-related EOG signals plotted for different saccade directions (left, right, up, down) and visual angles (2.5°, 5°, 7.5°, 10°, 12.5°, 15°). The red and blue lines represent the average earEOG signal. The dotted lines represent the average…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Voltage differences for each visual angle and direction of gaze using earEOG and gold-standard EOG. Scatter plots show the mean voltage differences for each visual angle and direction of gaze using earEOG (red / blue) and gold-standard EOG (coral / lightblue). The fill…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean absolute errors (MAEs) and standard deviations were calculated for both linear regression models: one trained on ear-EOG saccade data and the other on gold-standard EOG saccade data. −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 Mean of Predictions (gold-standard EOG and earEOG) (°…

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. 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

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gibaldi, A., Vanegas, M., Bex, P. J. & Maiello, G. Evaluation of the tobii eyex eye tracking controller and matlab toolkit for research. Behav. research methods 49, 923–946 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    A Survey on Eye-Gaze Tracking Techniques

    Chennamma, H. & Yuan, X. A survey on eye-gaze tracking techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6410 (2013)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Dhuliawala, M. et al. Smooth eye movement interaction using eog glasses. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 307–311 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    A., Gellersen, H

    Bulling, A., Ward, J. A., Gellersen, H. & Tröster, G. Eye movement analysis for activity recognition using electrooculogra- phy. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis machine intelligence 33, 741–753 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Zhu, X. et al. Eog-based drowsiness detection using convolutional neural networks. In 2014 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , 128–134 (IEEE, 2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Goebel, J. A. & Garcia, P. Prevalence of post-headshake nystagmus in patients with caloric deficits and vertigo.Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 106, 121–127 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    eye-writing

    Lee, K.-R., Chang, W.-D., Kim, S. & Im, C.-H. Real-time “eye-writing” recognition using electrooculogram. IEEE Transactions on Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 37–48 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Hansen, A. et al. Bodypursuits: Exploring smooth pursuit gaze interaction based on body motion targets. In Proceedings of the 2025 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ETRA ’25, DOI: 10.1145/3715669.3723110 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    A., Gellersen, H

    Bulling, A., Ward, J. A., Gellersen, H. & Tröster, G. Robust recognition of reading activity in transit using wearable electrooculography. In Pervasive Computing: 6th International Conference, Pervasive 2008 Sydney, Australia, May 19-22, 2008 Proceedings 6, 19–37 (Springer, 2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    & Inami, M

    Kunze, K., Katsutoshi, M., Uema, Y . & Inami, M. How much do you read? counting the number of words a user reads using electrooculography. In Proceedings of the 6th Augmented Human International Conference , 125–128 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    & Lunner, T

    Favre-Felix, A., Hietkamp, R., Graversen, C., Dau, T. & Lunner, T. Steering of audio input in hearing aids by eye gaze through electrooculography. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research , vol. 6, 135–142 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    & Lunner, T

    Favre-Félix, A., Graversen, C., Dau, T. & Lunner, T. Real-time estimation of eye gaze by in-ear electrodes. In 2017 39th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) , 4086–4089 (IEEE, 2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Favre-Félix, A. et al. Absolute eye gaze estimation with biosensors in hearing aids. Front. neuroscience 13, 1294 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    & Brimijoin, W

    Hládek, L., Porr, B. & Brimijoin, W. O. Real-time estimation of horizontal gaze angle by saccade integration using in-ear electrooculography. Plos one 13, e0190420 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    & Yagi, T

    Manabe, H., Fukumoto, M. & Yagi, T. Conductive rubber electrodes for earphone-based eye gesture input interface. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Wearable Computers , 33–40 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    & Fukumoto, M

    Manabe, H. & Fukumoto, M. Full-time wearable headphone-type gaze detector. In CHI’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1073–1078 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    & Gellersen, H

    Vidal, M., Bulling, A. & Gellersen, H. Pursuits: spontaneous interaction with displays based on smooth pursuit eye movement and moving targets. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing, 439–448 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Robinson, D. A. The mechanics of human smooth pursuit eye movement. The J. Physiol. 180, 569 (1965). 11/12

    1965

  11. [19]

    Open-ceegrid kit – openbci online store

    OpenBCI. Open-ceegrid kit – openbci online store. [Online; accessed 2025-01-13]

    2025

  12. [20]

    A review for filtering techniques of the Electrooculography (EOG) signals

    Aws M Abdullah, Ali R Ibrahim, Ammar A Al-Hamadani, Mohammed K Al-Obaidi & Anas F Ahmed. A review for filtering techniques of the Electrooculography (EOG) signals. Glob. J. Eng. Technol. Adv. 16, 163–171 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    K., Kavitha, C., Harichandran, A

    Murugan, S., Sivakumar, P. K., Kavitha, C., Harichandran, A. & Lai, W.-C. An electro-oculogram (eog) sensor’s ability to detect driver hypovigilance using machine learning. Sensors 23 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    JuBot - Staying young with robots

    Barbara, N. & Camilleri, T. A. Interfacing with a speller using EOG glasses. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , 001069–001074 (2016). Acknowledgements This work was partially supported through the KD2School and the KD2Lab at the Karl...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.