众包学生注释数据集:边界vs中心,哪个性能更好?

David Gil de Gómez Pérez, M. Suokas, R. Bednarik
{"title":"众包学生注释数据集:边界vs中心,哪个性能更好?","authors":"David Gil de Gómez Pérez, M. Suokas, R. Bednarik","doi":"10.1145/3208031.3208036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pupil-related feature detection is one of the most common approaches used in the eye-tracking literature and practice. Validation and benchmarking of the detection algorithms relies on accurate ground-truth datasets, but creating of these is costly. Many approaches have been used to obtain human based annotations. A recent proposal to obtain these work-intensive data is through a crowdsourced registration of the pupil center, in which a large number of users provide a single click to indicate the pupil center [Gil de Gómez Pérez and Bednarik 2018a]. In this paper we compare the existing approach to a method based on multiple clicks on the boundary of the pupil region, in order to determine which approach provides better results. To compare both methods, a new data collection was performed over the same image database. Several metrics were applied in order to evaluate the accuracy of the two methods.","PeriodicalId":212413,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Pervasive Eye Tracking and Mobile Eye-Based Interaction","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crowdsourcing pupil annotation datasets: boundary vs. center, what performs better?\",\"authors\":\"David Gil de Gómez Pérez, M. Suokas, R. Bednarik\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3208031.3208036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Pupil-related feature detection is one of the most common approaches used in the eye-tracking literature and practice. Validation and benchmarking of the detection algorithms relies on accurate ground-truth datasets, but creating of these is costly. Many approaches have been used to obtain human based annotations. A recent proposal to obtain these work-intensive data is through a crowdsourced registration of the pupil center, in which a large number of users provide a single click to indicate the pupil center [Gil de Gómez Pérez and Bednarik 2018a]. In this paper we compare the existing approach to a method based on multiple clicks on the boundary of the pupil region, in order to determine which approach provides better results. To compare both methods, a new data collection was performed over the same image database. Several metrics were applied in order to evaluate the accuracy of the two methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":212413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Pervasive Eye Tracking and Mobile Eye-Based Interaction\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Pervasive Eye Tracking and Mobile Eye-Based Interaction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3208031.3208036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Pervasive Eye Tracking and Mobile Eye-Based Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3208031.3208036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

瞳孔相关特征检测是眼动追踪文献和实践中最常用的方法之一。检测算法的验证和基准测试依赖于准确的地面真实数据集,但创建这些数据集的成本很高。已经使用了许多方法来获得基于人的注释。最近一项获得这些工作密集型数据的建议是通过瞳孔中心的众包注册,其中大量用户提供一次点击来指示瞳孔中心[Gil de Gómez psamurez and Bednarik 2018a]。在本文中,我们将现有的方法与基于瞳孔区域边界多次点击的方法进行比较,以确定哪种方法可以提供更好的结果。为了比较这两种方法,在同一图像数据库上执行新的数据收集。为了评估这两种方法的准确性,应用了几个指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Crowdsourcing pupil annotation datasets: boundary vs. center, what performs better?
Pupil-related feature detection is one of the most common approaches used in the eye-tracking literature and practice. Validation and benchmarking of the detection algorithms relies on accurate ground-truth datasets, but creating of these is costly. Many approaches have been used to obtain human based annotations. A recent proposal to obtain these work-intensive data is through a crowdsourced registration of the pupil center, in which a large number of users provide a single click to indicate the pupil center [Gil de Gómez Pérez and Bednarik 2018a]. In this paper we compare the existing approach to a method based on multiple clicks on the boundary of the pupil region, in order to determine which approach provides better results. To compare both methods, a new data collection was performed over the same image database. Several metrics were applied in order to evaluate the accuracy of the two methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信