鉴于视线特征在眼控交互领域的研究尚不充分,研究通过两个实验,旨在探究不同距离和形状的目标如何影响眼控目标选取绩效,并分析内在视线特征规律。结果发现：（1）距离增加显著降低目标选取绩效,且次级扫视时间是完成时间增加的主要来源。此外,目标选取绩效在10°距离后下降更明显,同时首次扫视潜伏期在10°左右最短,体现出U型变化趋势;（2）被试选取圆形和正方形目标的操作绩效显著优于长矩形和高矩形目标,伴随更小的首次扫视落点离散度和更少的次级扫视,并且高矩形目标下吞吐量显著高于长矩形目标。因此,为重要目标设计更符合视线特征规律的距离和形状参数,是优化眼控交互效率和体验的有效途径。
Abstract
Past research has indicated that target distance and shape are crucial factors influencing the performance of eye-controlled target selection operations. Furthermore, gaze characteristics serve as vital indicators for a deeper understanding of the inherent patterns in user operations. However, it is currently unclear how changes in target distance and shape affect gaze characteristics during the operation process. The study of sight features in the field of eye-controlled interaction is not enough. To investigate the effects of changes in target distance and shape on operation performance and participants' eye movements, this study conducted two experiments.
In the first experiment, 37 participants were recruited, and in the second experiment, 27 participants were recruited. The stimulus material in the experiment was displayed on a 19-inch monitor, positioned approximately 60cm directly in front of the participants' line of sight. Below the monitor was the German SMI -iView XTM RED eye tracker, with a sampling rate of 120Hz. During the experiment, participants placed their chin on a chinrest to avoid head movements that could affect eye tracking accuracy. All click confirmations during the experiment were performed using a uniform mouse (Dell MS111), with default settings. The specific designs of the two experiments are as follows: In Experiment 1, Targets were presented at five distance levels (5°, 7.5°, 10°, 12.5°, 15°) to investigate the effects of target distance changes on performance and participants' eye movements. Based on the results of Experiment 1, two representative distance levels, near and far, were selected to further explore the effect of distance. In Experiment 2, participants selected targets of four different shapes (circle, square, long rectangle, tall rectangle) at distance levels of 5° and 12.5° to study the effects on performance and eye movements. Participants were required in both experiments to select targets as quickly as possible while maintaining accuracy. In the two experiments, selection performance is mainly reflected by performance metrics and eye tracking metrics. The performance metrics include accuracy and reaction time, while the eye tracking metrics include saccade latency, first saccade time, secondary saccade time, and in Experiment 2, the inclusion of first saccade landing point dispersion and replacing secondary saccade time with the number of secondary saccades.
In Experiment 1, this study found that: (1) Target distance affected the performance of eye-controlled target selection operations(p < .001). As the distance increased, the accuracy of eye-controlled target selection decreased, and the time significantly increased (p < .05). (2) Target distance affected the eye movement characteristics in the three stages of eye-controlled target selection operations. With increasing distance, the latency of the first saccade showed a U-shaped trend (p < .001), with the latency for selecting close and far targets significantly longer than for selecting mid-range targets. However, as the target distance increased, the first saccade (p < .001) and secondary saccade times linearly increased (p < .05), and based on the fitting results, the increase in target selection time mainly came from the increase in secondary saccade time. (3) Additionally, this study found that 10° was an important turning point for eye-controlled target selection (2° target size). When selecting targets within this range, distance had little impact on accuracy and time. Beyond this range, as the distance increased, there was a decline in accuracy, an increase in time, and longer secondary saccade time. In Experiment 2, this study found that: (1) The completion time and accuracy metrics under circular and square conditions were superior to those under tall rectangular and long rectangular conditions (ps < .05), indicating that targets with balanced aspect ratios performed better in selection compared to targets with unbalanced aspect ratios..Then the throughput was markedly higher in the high rectangle condition as opposed to the long rectangle condition (p < .001) , and extending the target size vertically in the direction of motion enhanced operational performance. (2) Regarding gaze characteristics, target shape primarily influenced the later stages of scanning. Targets with balanced aspect ratios were more favorable for selection, evidenced by significantly reduced first saccade landing point dispersion (p < .05) and fewer secondary saccades (p < .001).
These findings emphasize the importance of target distance and shape factors in the design of effective eye-controlled interfaces, enriching the theoretical understanding of eye movement control, providing guidance for interactive interface design, and aiding in the development of user interfaces that align with human visual cognitive characteristics.
关键词
眼动追踪 /
目标选取 /
视线特征 /
目标距离 /
目标形状 /
人机交互
Key words
eye tracking /
target selection /
gaze characteristics /
target distance /
target shape /
human-computer interaction
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 康春燕, 李志昊, 张绍尧, 李宏汀, 王春慧, 田雨. (2020). 目标大小、目标距离及交互方式对指点绩效的影响. 航天医学与医学工程, 33(2), 112-119.
[2] Agustin J. S., Mateo J. C., Hansen J. P., & Villanueva A. (2009). Evaluation of the potential of gaze input for game interaction. PsychNology Journal, 7(2), 213-236.
[3] Alonso R., Causse M., Vachon F., Parise R., Dehais F., & Terrier P. (2013). Evaluation of head-free eye tracking as an input device for air traffic control. Ergonomics, 56(2), 246-255.
[4] Bahill A. T., Clark M. R., & Stark L. (1975). The main sequence, a tool for studying human eye movements. Mathematical Biosciences, 24(3-4), 191-204.
[5] Dafoe J. M., Armstrong I. T., & Munoz D. P. (2007). The influence of stimulus direction and eccentricity on pro-and anti-saccades in humans. Experimental Brain Research, 179(4), 563-570.
[6] De Vries J. P., Azadi R., & Harwood M. R. (2016). The saccadic size-latency phenomenon explored: Proximal target size is a determining factor in the saccade latency. Vision Research, 129, 87-97.
[7] Dembo, T., & Hanfmann, E. (1933). Intuitive halving and doubling of figures. Psychologische Forschung, 17(1), 306-318.
[8] Dick S., Ostendorf F., Kraft A., & Ploner C. J. (2004). Saccades to spatially extended targets: The role of eccentricity. Neuroreport, 15(3), 453-456.
[9] Duchowski, A. T. (2018). Gaze-based interaction: A 30 year retrospective. Computers and Graphics, 73, 59-69.
[10] Erdfelder E., Faul F., & Buchner A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28(1), 1-11.
[11] Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381-391.
[12] Gibaldi, A., & Sabatini, S. P. (2021). The saccade main sequence revised: A fast and repeatable tool for oculomotor analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 53(1), 167-187.
[13] Guadron L., van Opstal A. J., & Goossens J. (2022). Speed-accuracy tradeoffs influence the main sequence of saccadic eye movements. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 5262.
[14] Guestrin, E. D., & Eizenman, M. (2006). General theory of remote gaze estimation using the pupil center and corneal reflections. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 53(6), 1124-1133.
[15] Harwood M. R., Madelain L., Krauzlis R. J., & Wallman J. (2008). The spatial scale of attention strongly modulates saccade latencies. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99(4), 1743-1757.
[16] Heath M., Samani A., Tremblay L., & Elliott D. (2016). Fitts' theorem in oculomotor control: Dissociable movement times for amplitude and width manipulations. Journal of Motor Behavior, 48(6), 489-499.
[17] Hinze V. K., Uslu O., Antono J. E., Wilke M., & Pooresmaeili A. (2021). The effect of subliminal incentives on goal-directed eye movements. Journal of Neurophysiology, 126(6), 2014-2026.
[18] Hong, S. K. (2015). Comparison of vertical and horizontal eye movement times in the selection of visual targets by an eye input device. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 34(1), 19-27.
[19] Istance, H. O. (2017). An investigation into gaze-based interaction techniques for people with motor impairments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loughborough University.
[20] Katsini C., Abdrabou Y., Raptis G. E., Khamis M., & Alt F. (2020). The role of eye gaze in security and privacy applications: Survey and future HCI research directions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI.
[21] Kulke, L. (2017). The effect of stimulus size and eccentricity on attention shift latencies. Vision, 1(4), Article 25.
[22] MacKenzie, I. S. (2018). Fitts' law. In K. L. Norman & J. Kirakowski (Eds.), The wiley handbook of human computer interaction (pp. 347-370). Wiley Publishing.
[23] Melcher, D., & Kowler, E. (1999). Shapes, surfaces and saccades. Vision Research, 39(17), 2929-2946.
[24] Minakata K., Hansen J. P., MacKenzie I. S., Bækgaard P., & Rajanna V. (2019). Pointing by gaze, head, and foot in a head-mounted display. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM symposium on eye tracking research and applications, Denver, USA.
[25] Munoz, D. P., & Everling, S. (2004). Look away: The anti-saccade task and the voluntary control of eye movement. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(3), 218-228.
[26] Murata, A., & Fukunaga, D. (2018). Extended Fitts' model of pointing time in eye-gaze input system-Incorporating effects of target shape and movement direction into modeling. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 54-60.
[27] Murata, A., & Miyake, T. (2008). Effectiveness of eye-gaze input system: Identification of conditions that assures high pointing accuracy and movement directional effect. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Applications, Hiroshima, Japan.
[28] Murata A., Moriwaka M., & Fukunaga D. (2015). Effects of target shape and display location on pointing performance by eye-gaze input system. In Proceedings of the Kurosu, meeting of 17th International Conference, Los Angeles, USA.
[29] Niu Y. F., Tian J. Z., Han Z. J., Qu M. Y., Tong M., Yang W. J., & Xue C. Q. (2022). Enhancing user experience of eye-controlled systems: Design recommendations on the optimal size, distance and shape of interactive components from the perspective of peripheral vision. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), Article 10737.
[30] Ploner C. J., Ostendorf F., & Dick S. (2004). Target size modulates saccadic eye movements in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118(1), 237-242.
[31] Schuetz I., Murdison T. S., MacKenzie K. J., & Zannoli M. (2019). An explanation of fitts' law-like performance in gaze-based selection tasks using a psychophysics approach. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
[32] Sibert L. E., Jacob R. J. K., & Templeman J. N. (2000). Evaluation and analysis of eye gaze interaction. Naval Research Laboratory.
[33] Souto D., Marsh O., Hutchinson C., Judge S., & Paterson K. B. (2021). Cognitive plasticity induced by gaze-control technology: Gaze-typing improves performance in the antisaccade task. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106831.
[34] Sundstedt, V. (2012). Gazing at games: An introduction to eye tracking control. Morgan and Claypool Publishers.
[35] Surakka V., Illi M., & Isokoski P. (2004). Gazing and frowning as a new human--computer interaction technique. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 1(1), 40-56.
[36] van Beers, R. J. (2007). The sources of variability in saccadic eye movements. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(33), 8757-8770.
[37] Vertegaal, R. (2008). A Fitts law comparison of eye tracking and manual input in the selection of visual targets. In Proceedings of the 10th International conference on multimodal interfaces, Chania, Greece.
[38] Vullings C., Harwood M. R., & Madelain L. (2019). Reinforcement reduces the size-latency phenomenon: A cost-benefit evaluation of saccade triggering. Journal of Vision, 19(4), Article 16.
[39] Wallace, V. L. (1976). The semantics of graphic input devices. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on graphic languages, Florida, USA.
[40] Ware, C., & Mikaelian, H. H. (1987). An evaluation of an eye tracker as a device for computer input2. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI/GI Conference on human factors in computing systems and graphics interface, Toronto, Canada.
[41] Wu C. C., Kwon O. S., & Kowler E. (2010). Fitts' s law and speed/accuracy trade-offs during sequences of saccades: Implications for strategies of saccadic planning. Vision Research, 50(21), 2142-2157.
[42] Zhang, X. Y. (2021). Evaluating the effects of saccade types and directions on eye pointing tasks. Poster session presented at the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, USA.
[43] Zhang X. Y., Ren X. S., & Zha H. B. (2010). Modeling dwell-based eye pointing target acquisition. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, USA.
基金
*本研究得到浙江省自然科学基金项目（LQ19C090008）的资助
PDF(2134 KB)
