Student Progress Assessment with the Help of an Intelligent Pupil Analysis System

  • Arturas KaklauskasEmail author
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 81)


Students and lecturers would like to know how well students have learned the study materials being taught. A formal test or exam would cause needless stress for students. To resolve this problem, the author along with their colleagues have developed an Intelligent Pupil Analysis (IPA) System. A sufficient amount of studies worldwide prove an interrelation between pupil size and a person’s cognitive load. The obtained research results are comparable with the results from other similar studies. The original contribution of this chapter, compared to the research results published earlier, is as follows: the IPA System developed by the authors in conjunction with colleagues is superior to the traditional pupil analysis research due to the integration of pupil analysis with subsystems of decision support, recommender and intelligent tutoring systems and innovative Models of the Model-base, which permit a more detailed analysis of the knowledge attained by a student. This chapter ends with a case study to demonstrate the practical operation of the IPA System.


Cognitive Load Recommender System Pupil Dilation Pupil Size Pupil Diameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahlstrom U, Friedman-Berg FJ (2006) Using eye movement activity as a correlate of cognitive workload. Int J Ind Ergon 36(7):623–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AlFallay I (2004) The role of some selected psychological and personality traits of the rater in the accuracy of self-and peer-assessment. System 32(3):407–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreassi JL (2006) Pupillary response and behavior. Psychophysiology: human behavior and physiological response, 5th edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 289–307Google Scholar
  4. Andreassi JL (2007) Psychophysiology—Human behavior and physiological response. Lawrence Erlbaum Associatex Inc Publishers, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  5. Backs RW, Walrath LC (1992) Eye movement and pupillary response indices of mental workload during visual search of symbolic displays. Appl Ergon 23(4):243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlow JD (1969) Pupillary size as a index of preference in political candidates. Percept Mot Skills 28:927–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barros H, Silva A, Costa E, Bittencourt II, Holanda O, Sales L (2011) Steps, techniques, and technologies for the development of intelligent applications based on semantic Web services: a case study in e-learning systems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24(8):1355–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beatty J (1982) Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull 91(2):276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beatty J, Lucero-Wagoner B (2000) The pupillary system. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson GG (eds) Handbook of psychophysiology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 142–162Google Scholar
  10. Blanco-Fernández Y, López-Nores M, Pazos-Arias JJ, García-Duque J (2011) An improvement for semantics-based recommender systems grounded on attaching temporal information to ontologies and user profiles. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24(8):1385–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braak JPV (2004) Domains and determinants of university students’ self-perceived computer competence. Comput Educ 43:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke R (2007) Hybrid web recommender systems. In: Brusilovsky P, Kobsa A, Nejdl W (eds) The adaptive web. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 377–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald JT, White CB, Gruppen LD (2003) A longtitudinal study of selfassessment accuracy. Med Educ 37:645–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golbeck J (2006) Generating predictive movie recommendations from trust in social networks. In: Proceedings of 4th International conference on trust management, Pisa, pp 93–104, 16–19 May 2006Google Scholar
  15. Goldwater C (1972) Psychological significance of pupillary movements. Psychol Bull 77(5):340–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Granholm E, Steinhauer SR (2004) Introduction: pupillometric measures of cognitive and emotional processing. Int J Psychophysiol 52:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hess EH (1975) The tell-tale eye. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess EH, Polt JM (1964) Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science 143(3611):1190–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyona J, Tommola J, Alaja AM (1995) Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. Q J Exp Psychol 48A:598–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Just MA, Carpenter PA (1993) The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Can J Exp Psychol/Revue canadienne de psychologie expirimentale 47(2):310–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman D, Beatty J (1966) Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science 154(3756):1583–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaklauskas A, Vlasenko A, Krutinis M, Kaklauskas G (2007) Integration of intelligent, voice stress analysis, and iris recognition technologies in construction and real estate. In: Proceedings of 7th International conference on reliability and statistics in transportation and communication (RelStat07), Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Riga, pp 238–245Google Scholar
  23. Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Pruskus V, Vlasenko A, Seniut M, Kaklauskas G, Matuliauskaite A, Gribniak V (2010) Biometric and intelligent self-assessment of student progress system. Comput Educ 55(2):821–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Pruskus V, Vlasenko A, Bartkiene L, Paliskiene R, Zemeckyte L, Gerstein V, Dzemyda G, Tamulevicius G (2011a) Recommended biometric stress management system. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):14011–14025Google Scholar
  25. Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Seniut M, Dzemyda G, Stankevic V, Simkevicius C, Stankevic T, Paliskiene R, Matuliauskaite A, Kildiene S, Bartkiene L, Ivanikovas S, Gribniak V (2011b) Web-based biometric computer mouse advisory system to analyze a user’s emotions and work productivity. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24(6):928–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaklauskas A, Vlasenko A, Raudonis V, Zavadskas EK, Gudauskas R, Seniut M, Juozapaitis A, Jackute I, Kanapeckiene L, Rimkuviene S, Kaklauskas G (2013) Student progress assessment with the help of an intelligent pupil analysis system. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(1):35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klingner J (2010) Fixation-aligned pupillary response averaging. In: Proceedings of the 2010 symposium on eye tracking research and applications, Austin, 22–24 March 2010. ACM, New York, pp 275–282Google Scholar
  28. Klingner J, Kumar R, Hanrahan P (2008) Measuring the task-evoked pupillary response with a remote eye tracker. In: Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on eye tracking research and applications, Savannah. ACM, New York, pp 69–72, 26–28 Mar 2008Google Scholar
  29. Lou HH, Huang YL (2003) Hierarchical decision making for proactive quality control: system development for defect reduction in automotive coating operations. Eng Appl Artif Intell 16(3):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahmood T, Ricci F (2009) Improving recommender systems with adaptive conversational strategies. In: Cattuto C, Ruffo G, Menczer F (eds) Hyper-text. ACM, New York, pp 73–82Google Scholar
  31. Matsuno S (2009) Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Lang Test 26(1):75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mynttinen S, Sundstrom A, Vissers J, Koivukoski M, Hakuli K, Keskinen E (2009) Self-assessed driver competence among novice drivers—a comparison of driving test candidate assessments and examiner assessments in a Dutchand Finnish sample. J Saf Res 40(4):301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Papagelis M, Plexousakis D (2005) Qualitative analysis of user-based and itembased prediction algorithms for recommendation agents. Eng Appl Artif Intell 18(7):781–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Papesh MH, Goldinger SD, Hout MC (2012) Memory strength and specificity revealed by pupillometry. Int J Psychophysiol 83(1):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Partala T, Surakka V (2003) Pupil size as an indication of affective processing. Int J Hum-Comp Stud 59(1–2):185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peavler WS (1974) Pupil size, information overload, and performance differences. Psychophysiology 11(5):559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porter G, Troscianko T, Gilchrist ID (2007) Effort during visual search and counting: insights from pupillometry. Q J Exp Psychol 60(2):211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Resnick P, Varian HR (1997) Recommender systems. Commun ACM 40(3):56–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricci F, Rokach L, Shapira B, Kantor PB (2011) Recommender systems handbook. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Sinha RR, Swearingen K (2001) Comparing recommendations made by online systems and friends. In: DELOS workshop: personalisation and recommender systems in digital librariesGoogle Scholar
  41. Uraikul V, Chan CW, Tontiwachwuthikul P (2007) Artificial intelligence for monitoring and supervisory control of process systems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(2):115–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valverde L, De Lera E, Fernandez C (2010) Inferencing emotions through the triangulation of pupil size data, facial heuristics and self-assessment techniques. In: Proceedings of eL&mL international conference on mobile, hybrid and online learning, vol 62. Netherlands Antilles, pp 972–988Google Scholar
  43. Vo ML, Jacobs AM, Kuchinke L, Hofmann M, Conrad M, Schacht A, Hutzler F (2008) The coupling of emotion and cognition in the eye: introducing the pupil old/new effect. Psychophysiology 45:30–40Google Scholar
  44. Wang JT (2010) Pupil dilation and eye-tracking. In: Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Kuhberger A, Ranyard R (eds) A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research: a critical review and user’s guide, Psychology Press, pp 185–204Google Scholar
  45. Whiting J (1988) Development of intelligent tutoring systems for open and distance learning. Eng Appl Artif Intell 1(2):126–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A (2007) Development and integration of intelligent, voice stress analysis and IRIS recognition technologies in construction. In: 24th international symposium on automation & robotics in construction, Kochi, Kerala, India, pp 467–472, 19–21 Sep 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vilnius Gediminas Technical UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations