Advertisement

Pupil-Assisted Target Selection (PATS)

  • Christoph StrauchEmail author
  • Jan Ehlers
  • Anke Huckauf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10515)

Abstract

Physiological signals such as pupil size changes promise improvements for human-computer-interaction. However, the pupil response is known to be rather slow and unspecific. This hinders its application in target selection up to now. Nevertheless, there are indications for fast diameter changes accompanying cognitive processing already at early stages so that pupil effects can even precede psycho-motor activity. Building on these findings, we investigated the potential of short-latency pupil size changes for improving target selection in a search and select task. Pupil assisted target selection (PATS) was shown to be competitive to both, purely pupil-based and to dwell-time based selection modes in regard to selection times, but at the cost of more false positives than for a dwell-time approach in a search and select task. This demonstrates the usefulness of PATS as a means for target selection. The observed pupil dynamics correspond to early signal courses in basic research. Pupil dynamics also suggest room for further improvements of the integrated concept of pupil-assisted target selection.

Keywords

Gaze-based interaction Cognitive pupillometry Physiological computing Eye-tracking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the volunteers. We would also like to thank Teresa Hirzle in particular for her extraordinary valuable technical assistance and discussions. This study was supported by the SFB 62 by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

References

  1. 1.
    Jacucci, G., Fairclough, S., Solovey, E.T.: Physiological computing. Computer 48, 12–16 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byrne, E.A., Parasuraman, R.: Psychophysiology and adaptive automation. Biol. Psychol. 42, 249–268 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allanson, J., Fairclough, S.H.: A research agenda for physiological computing. Interact. Comput. 16, 857–878 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehlers, J., Strauch, C., Georgi, J., Huckauf, A.: Pupil size changes as an active information channel for biofeedback applications. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 41(3), 1–9 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Partala, T., Surakka, V.: Pupil size variation as an indication of affective processing. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59, 185–198 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richer, F., Beatty, J.: Pupillary dilations in movement preparation and execution. Psychophysiology 22, 204–207 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Gee, J.W., Knapen, T., Donner, T.H.: Decision-related pupil dilation reflects upcoming choice and individual bias. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111, E618–E625 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beatty, J., Lucero-Wagoner, B.: The pupillary system. Handb. Psychophysiol. 2, 142–162 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hess, E.H., Polt, J.M.: Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science 143, 1190–1192 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wierda, S.M., van Rijn, H., Taatgen, N.A., Martens, S.: Pupil dilation deconvolution reveals the dynamics of attention at high temporal resolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 8456–8460 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simpson, H.M., Hale, S.M.: Pupillary changes during a decision-making task. Percept. Mot. Skills 29, 495–498 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slanzi, G., Balazs, J.A., Velásquez, J.D.: Combining eye tracking, pupil dilation and EEG analysis for predicting web users click intention. Inf. Fusion 35, 51–57 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pittino, F., Mai, S., Huckauf, A., Pollatos, O.: Effects of hunger on sympathetic activation and attentional processes for physiological computing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Physiological Computing, pp. 542–546 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jang, Y.-M., Mallipeddi, R., Lee, S., Kwak, H.-W., Lee, M.: Human intention recognition based on eyeball movement pattern and pupil size variation. Neurocomputing 128, 421–432 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pomplun, M., Sunkara, S.: Pupil dilation as an indicator of cognitive workload in human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on HCI (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mathôt, S., Melmi, J.-B., van der Linden, L., van der Stigchel, S.: The mind-writing pupil: a human-computer interface based on decoding of covert attention through pupillometry. PLoS ONE 11, e0148805 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stoll, J., Chatelle, C., Carter, O., Koch, C., Laureys, S., Einhäuser, W.: Pupil responses allow communication in locked-in syndrome patients. Curr. Biol. 23, R647–R648 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ehlers, J., Strauch, C., Huckauf, A.: A view to a click: pupil size changes as input command in eyes-only human-computer interaction. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. (submitted)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ekman, I., Poikola, A.W., Mäkäräinen, M.K.: Invisible eni: using gaze and pupil size to control a game. In: Proceedings of the 2008 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ekman, I., Poikola, A., Mäkäräinen, M., Takala, T., Hämäläinen, P.: Voluntary pupil size change as control in eyes only interaction. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications ETRA, pp. 115–118 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Einhäuser, W., Stout, J., Koch, C., Carter, O.: Pupil dilation reflects perceptual selection and predicts subsequent stability in perceptual rivalry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 1704–1709 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klingner, J.: Fixation-aligned pupillary response averaging. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications, pp. 275–282. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Privitera, C.M., Renninger, L.W., Carney, T., Klein, S., Aguilar, M.: Pupil dilation during visual target detection. J. Vis. 10, 3 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bednarik, R., Vrzakova, H., Hradis, M.: What do you want to do next: a novel approach for intent prediction in gaze-based interaction. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, pp. 83–90. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Majaranta, P., Ahola, U.K., Spakov, O.: Fast eye-typing with an adjustable dwell time. In: Proceedings of the 2009 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: International Conference on Human Centered Design (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peirce, J.W.: PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. J. Neurosci. Methods 162, 8–13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: Correlations among prototypical usability metrics: evidence for the construct of usability. In: Proceedings of the 2009 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1609–1618. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Urai, A.E., Braun, A., Donner, T.H.: Pupil-linked arousal is driven by decision uncertainty and alters serial choice bias. Nat. Commun. 8 (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mathôt, S., Melmi, J.-B., Castet, E.: Intrasaccadic perception triggers pupillary constriction. PeerJ 3, e1150 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jadue, J., Slanzi, G., Vel, J.: Web user click intention prediction by using pupil dilation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), pp. 433–436 (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhai, S.: What’s in the eyes for attentive input. Commun. ACM 46, 34–39 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General PsychologyUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations