Methods and systems disclosed herein relate generally to display features that could be distracting. Most eye-trackers come equipped with software to analyze the eye-movements of individual participants, including fixations and saccades (eye movements between fixations). What is needed is a method that combines and compiles fixations of multiple participants.
The system and method of the present embodiment analyze multiple participants' eye-movements (specifically, fixations) over a visual display (e.g., anything displayed on a computer screen) to determine which features on the display universally attract the most attention, or are the most distracting. Eye movement data are generally recorded by an eye-tracking device as either fixations (when visual attention is focused on an item in the field of view) or saccades (when there is eye movement—and therefore a change in visual attention—from one fixation to another). A saccade is detected when eye movement velocity is more than a predetermined speed (e.g., 30 degrees of visual angle per second), and a fixation is detected when eye movement velocity is less than that speed. When a region of interest is fixated upon (which subtends approximately 2 degrees of visual angle), that region is brought into focus and, the observer may be attending to and attempting to perceive and understand the information there. By recording and then clustering many observers' fixations over a common display, the regions of the display that are universally attracting people's attention can be analyzed.
The problems set forth above as well as further and other problems are solved by the present teachings. These solutions and other advantages are achieved by the various embodiments of the teachings described herein below.
The invention is a computer system and method for determining distracting features on an electronic visual display. The system and method cluster multiple observers' fixations, and track various information for each fixation, including (as a minimum) the screen location (X and Y) of the fixation and a unique index number representing the participant who made the fixation. Any other information that was measured in association with the fixation can also be tracked. Counts, averages, standard deviations, and other statistical analyses of the information for each cluster of fixations can be determined. This additional information could include, but is not limited to including, the length (dwell time) of the clustered fixations, the direction and length of previous or following saccades, the amount of clutter immediately surrounding the fixation (as measured by various clutter models), and the average salience of features immediately surrounding the fixation (as measured by various saliency models). The system and method of the present embodiment can be used to filter all the fixation clusters by number of observers, such that only clusters containing at least a pre-selected minimum number (or a maximum number, for a given display) of observers' fixations are analyzed. One method of viewing the resulting clusters is to save them as shapefiles and view/analyze them with ARCINFO® or ARCGIS®.
In the present embodiment, fixations for twenty-four observers are included. The following fixations can be, but are not required to be, excluded from clustering: (1) first fixation for each observer/map (center point fixation); (2) all fixations after each observer completed any assigned tasks (e.g., if this was a target detection task, omit all fixations after the observer detected the target); and (3) all fixations for a trial suspected of eye-tracker drift. Clusters are created using, for example, but not limited to, a circular expansion of size five pixels (diameter=10 pix, or 0.5° visual angle). Thus, in the present embodiment, the furthest that two fixations could be separated and still be clustered together would be 0.5°. Clusters containing fixations from at least a pre-selected number of different observers, for example, but not limited to, six or 25% of the observer pool in the exemplary configuration, are shown. In this example, the largest number of observers that were represented in a single cluster was six. After removing the smallest clusters (with, for example, but not limited to, <6 observers' fixations), a border of pre-selected pixel width, for example, but not limited to, fifteen pixels, is added to the remaining clusters, resulting in a minimum of a forty pixel diameter (2° visual angle) per cluster, to make it easier to see what feature is being viewed. All values denoted as “pre-selected” could be constant, computed, retrieved from electronic storage, or user-selected, for example.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring now to
Optional steps can include (1) while forming each cluster, automatically calculating and maintaining a running summation and count of various measureable parameters associated with each fixation in each cluster, including, but not limited to including, (a) the number of unique observers represented by the fixations in each cluster; (b) the duration (in milliseconds) of each of the fixations in each cluster; (c) the index (i.e., location in time, per trial) of each fixation in each cluster; (d) any other measureable, user-specified parameters associated with each fixation in each cluster; (2) after forming each cluster, automatically calculating the final number of unique observers represented by the fixations in each cluster; and standard statistical measures (e.g., minimum, maximum, average, median, mode, standard deviation, etc.) for each measurable parameter calculated for the fixations in each cluster; and (3) automatically providing the clustered fixation statistics for each distracting feature.
The method of the present embodiment could be implemented as executable computer code configured with, for example, but not limited to: (1) default values for clustering resolution, e.g. 10, and the clustering radius, e.g. 5 (such that 2 points would be clustered together if they are 10 (or fewer) pixels apart); (2) the location of the fixations input file; (3) the location in which are to be written the output files, e.g. shapefiles; (4) a flag to indicate whether a) exact point locations are used or b) point locations are “snapped” to the nearest grid location, based on a preset resolution; (5) the resolution (in pixels) if the previous flag is set to “snap” to a grid; and (6) a flag to indicate whether or not to smooth the cluster boundaries, which a) would compress the final cluster file and b) might in some cases (e.g., for very complex cluster boundaries) produce cleaner, less jagged-looking cluster boundaries. The executable computer code could be invoked with parameters such as, for example, but not limited to, (1) a unique identifier per fixation; (2) the screen coordinates of the fixation; (3) the observer's identifier; (4) the fixation length (amount of time fixated, in milliseconds); and (5) the average clutter and saliency of the region immediately surrounding the fixation (e.g., 2° of visual angle centered on the fixation point).
Referring now to
Referring now to
Embodiments of the present teachings are directed to computer systems for accomplishing the methods discussed in the description herein, and to computer readable media containing programs for accomplishing these methods. The raw data and results can be stored for future retrieval and processing, printed, displayed, transferred to another computer, and/or transferred elsewhere. Communications links can be wired or wireless, for example, using cellular communication systems, military communications systems, and satellite communications systems. In an exemplary embodiment, the software for the system is written in Fortran and C. The system operates on a computer having a variable number of CPUs. Other alternative computer platforms can be used. The operating system can be, for example, but is not limited to, WINDOWS® or LINUX®.
The present embodiment is also directed to software for accomplishing the methods discussed herein, and computer readable media storing software for accomplishing these methods. The various modules described herein can be accomplished on the same CPU, or can be accomplished on a different computer. In compliance with the statute, the present embodiment has been described in language more or less specific as to structural and methodical features. It is to be understood, however, that the present embodiment is not limited to the specific features shown and described, since the means herein disclosed comprise preferred forms of putting the present embodiment into effect.
Referring again primarily to
Although the present teachings have been described with respect to various embodiments, it should be realized these teachings are also capable of a wide variety of further and other embodiments.
This Application is a non-provisional application claiming priority to provisional application 61/526,808 filed on Aug. 24, 2011, under 35 USC 119(e). The entire disclosure of the provisional application is incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5341181 | Godard | Aug 1994 | A |
| 6106119 | Edwards | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6218965 | Gendron et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6333994 | Perrone | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6447396 | Galyean, III | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6677886 | Lok | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 7120880 | Dryer | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7567714 | Gendron et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7764840 | Gendron et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 8401248 | Moon | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8654390 | Chi | Feb 2014 | B1 |
| 20040101212 | Fedorovskaya et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040103111 | Miller et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20050105768 | Yang et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20060009955 | Gendron et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060093998 | Vertegaal | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20070057945 | Olson | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070088714 | Edwards et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20090024964 | Kantamneni | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172540 | Jung et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090279807 | Kanamorl | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20100033333 | Victor et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100103246 | Schwerdtner et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100174586 | Berg, Jr. et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100239170 | Asnis | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20110043617 | Vertegaal et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110178967 | Delp | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110270213 | Peterson et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20120078623 | Vertegaal et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120146891 | Kalinli | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120259638 | Kalinli | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120316793 | Jung et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20140063054 | Osterhout et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Beck, M.R., Lohrenz, M.C., Trafton, J.G. (2010) Measuring Search Efficiency in Complex Visual Search Tasks: Global and Local Clutter, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), pp. 238-250. |
| Beck, M.R., Lohrenz, M.C., Trafton, J.G. & Gendron, M.L. (2008) The role of local and global clutter in visual search.(Abstract Only) Journal of Vision, May 10, 2008, 8(6), Article 1071. |
| Lohrenz, M.C. and Gendron, M.L., (2008) A 3D clustering algorithm to model clutter in electronic geospatial displays, Journal of Management and Engineering Integration, 1(2), pp. 83-88. |
| Lohrenz, M.C., Trenchard, M., Myrick, S., Van Zuyle, P. & Fechtig, S. (1997) Optimizing cockpit moving-map displays for enhanced situational awareness. Chapter 13 in Situational awareness in the tactical air environment: Augmented proceedings of the Naval Air Warfare Center's first annual symposium, CSERIAC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, pp. 363-387. |
| Najemnick, J., & Geisler, W.S.,(2008) Eye movement statistics in humans are consistent with an optimal search strategy, Journal of Vision, 8(3):4, pp. 1-14, Mar. 6. |
| Ottes, F.P., Van Gisbergen, J.A. & Eggermont, J.J. (1985) Latency dependence of colour-based target vs nontarget discrimination by the saccadic system. Vision Research, 25(6), pp. 849-862. |
| Findlay, J.M., (1997). Saccade target selection during visual search. Vision Research, 37(5), pp. 617-631. |
| Reddy, L. & Van Rullen, R.(2007) Spacing affects some but not all visual searches: Implications of theories of attention and crowding, Journal of Vision, 7(2):3, pp. 1-17. |
| Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Mansfield, J. & Jin, Z (2005) Feature congestion: A measure of display clutter. CHI, Portland, OR, ACM 1-58113-998/5/05/0004, Apr. 2-7. |
| Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., & Nakano, L.(2007) Measuring visual clutter, Journal of Vision, 7(2), 1-22. |
| Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y. Nakano, L. (2005) Feature Congestion 1.0: A Measure of Visual Clutter, Journal of Vision, ISSN 1534-7362, pp. 1-15. |
| Schons, V. & Wickens, C. (1993) Visual separation and information access in aircraft display layout, University of Illinois Institution of Aviation Technical Report ARL-93-7/NASA-A3I-93-1, Savoy, IL, August. |
| Wolfe, J.M., (1998) What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9(1), 33-39, January. |
| Lohrenz, M.C., & Beck, M.R.,(2011) Clutter avoidance in complex geospatial displays, 2011 Naval Research Laboratory Review, Information Technology and Communications, pp. 167-169. |
| Lohrenz, M.C. (2003) Cognitive issues related to advanced cockpit displays: Supporting the transition between internal and external guidance. Thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June. |
| Lohrenz, M.C., Trafton, J.G, Beck, M.R. & Gendron, M.L. (2009) A model of clutter for complex, multivariate, geospatial displays. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 51(1), pp. 90-101, February. |
| Lohrenz, M.C., Beck, M.R., Trafton, J.G. & Gendron, M.L.(2008) Measurement and Analysis of Clutter in Electronic Displays. 2008 Naval Research Labortory Information and Technology Review, pp. 163-165. |
| Lohrenz, M.C., Trafton, J.G., Beck, M.R., (2008) Clearing up the Clutter. The Defense Management Journal (41), Ebenezer House, Staffordshire, UK, pp. 167-169. |
| Lohrenz, M.C.& Beck, M.R. (2010) Evidence of clutter avoidance in complex scenes. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) meeting, San Francisco, Sep. 27-Oct. 1, pp. 1355-1359. |
| Lohrenz, M.C.& Beck, M.R. (2010) Evidence of clutter avoidance in complex scenes. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) meeting, Slide/Power Point Presentation. San Francisco. Sep. 27-Oct. 1. |
| Beck, M.R., Lohrenz, M.C., Trafton, J.G. & Gendron, M.L.(2008) The role of local and global clutter in visual search. Poster presented at the Vision Sciences Society meeting, Naples, FL. May 9-14. |
| Gendron, M.L, Lohrenz, M.C., (2008) A 2-D clustering algorithm to aid mine-warfare analysts in determining navigable lanes over cluttered seafloors. Journal of Management & Engineering Integration 1(2), 28-34. December. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 61/526,808, filed Aug. 24, 2011, System and Method for Determining Distracting Features in a Visual Display, Maura Connor Lohrenz, et al. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130050268 A1 | Feb 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61526808 | Aug 2011 | US |