benjamin noah, jung-hyup kim, ling rothrock, & anand tharanathan eye tracking within process...

Benjamin Noah, Jung-Hyup Kim, Ling Rothrock, & Anand Tharanathan

Eye Tracking within Process Control Monitoring Tasks

Abstract

• This experiment investigated the implementation of eye tracking within the control room environment. Three overview displays (Surface Chart, Heat Map, and Visual Thesaurus) were used to both establish which results in better performance and how eye movement behavior can be used to infer cognitive processing components. 48 operators participated in a human-in-the-loop test bed simulating a crude oil process monitoring task. The experiment was a 3 (display type) x 2 (complexity level) x 2 (trial) mixed factorial design.

• The eye movement behavioral metrics provided interpretations which are largely consistent with performance metrics for the complexity and trial factors. The display factor indicated that the eye metrics were not consistent with performance metrics. While the Surface Chart display facilitated better performance, eye metrics indicated that the Visual Thesaurus display had the preferred monitoring behavior. While comparing eye metrics between visualizations is not recommended, the results of this research indicate that eye tracking metrics could be used within a constant process control stimulus environment (consistent visualization) in order to make interpretations of changes in: operator monitoring efficiency and behavior (such as top-down vs. bottom-up processing, and local vs. global attention), operator workload, and attention allocation areas through gaze points and ROIs.

2

2

Alternative Displays Paper

3

“Evaluating Alternate Visualization Techniques forOverview Displays in Process Control”

(Noah, Kim, Rothrock, & Tharanathan, 2014)


4

Objective:

The objective of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of overview displays in terms of operator task performance and situation awareness. Three candidate overview displays where chosen:

1) the Calm Water representation being used by (BP),

2) the Heat Map representation being used by Sasol, and

3) the Visual Thesaurus display that was developed by Honeywell.

Heat MapCalm Water Visual Thesaurus


5


6


7

Factors LevelsOverview Displays(between-subject) Visual Thesaurus Heat Map Calm Water

Scenario Complexity

(within-subject)High Complexity Low Complexity ◄ (balanced)

Trial(within-subject) Trial 1 Trial 2

Table 1: Independent variables

Measures Metrics

Situation Awareness Level 2 (accuracy %)

Performance % correct clicks #false alarm clicks

Reaction Time (seconds)

Workload NASA TLX

Viewing Behavior % time in ROI

2nd Task Performance

Performance accuracy (%)

Table 2: Dependent variables

DOE:Repeated Measure Between-Subjects Design• 48 participants• actual operators


8

Results The Calm Water display resulted in better performance on the primary measures of:

Click accuracy Response time System Monitoring Task in MATB

Eye Tracking

9

Can eye movement tell us what we are processing?

Thought formation occurs in conjunction with eye movement, and both are automatic behaviors (e.g., Nielsen, 1994; Rubin & Chisnell, 2008)

Eye metrics has been closely linked with cognitive processing• Fixations : attention allocation

(e.g., Ooms, De Maeyer, & Fack, 2014; Duchowski, 2007; Jacob & Karn, 2003; Poole & Ball, 2006)

• Fixation durations : interpretation difficulty (e.g., Duchowski, 2007; Holmqvist et al., 2011; Just & Carpenter, 1976)

• Scanpaths : cognitive strategies (e.g., De Vries, Hooge, & Verstraten, 2014; Kang & Landry, 2014)

• Pupil size : cognitive workload (e.g., Beatty, 1982; Szulewski, Fernando, Baylis, & Howes, 2014)

• Blinks : tension (e.g., Bruneau, Sasse, & McCarthy, 2002; Poole & Ball, 2005)

Eye Tracking

10

How do we interpret visual stimuli?

Two basic cognitive processes happen: (Matlin, 2005)

• Attention [concentration of mental activity]• Object recognition• Attention occurs before object recognition

Two types of information processing: (Ooms, et al., 2014)

• Bottom-up [stimuli-driven]• Top-down [knowledge-driven]• Interpretation uses a combination of these two

Eye Tracking

11

What are the current challenges with eye tracking?

“Look but not see” phenomenon: fixations ≠ perception (Salmon, Stanton, Walker, & Green, 2006; Triesch, Ballard, Hayhoe, & Sullivan, 2003)

High variability in eye measures between individuals• Within-subject experiments are strongly recommended

(Goldberg & Wichansky, 2003)

Eye Tracking

12

Visual behavior in process control monitoring tasks?

Operators conduct systematic visual scanning to retrieve the information that is needed for maintaining situation awareness

(Willems, Allen, & Stein, 1999)

Overly complex tasks cause a loss of situation awareness (F. B. Bjørneseth, Renganayagalu, Dunlop, Homecker, & Komandur, 2012)

Eye Tracker Methodology

13

Equipment

Arrington Research head-mounted binocular eye tracker

30 Hz

Data

Fixation events determined using a dispersion-based algorithm

Blinks and low quality data removed

Primary Eye Metrics

Fixations, saccades, and Regions of Interest (ROI)

Additional Metrics

Total fixations, total fixation duration, fixation duration mean, total saccade duration, saccade duration mean, fixation rate (per second), fixation/saccade duration ratio, mean saccade amplitude, and scanpath length

Experiment Plan

14

How will we relate eye measures to the task?

1. Catalog eye metrics from literature

2. Collect and analyze data with respect to the cataloged eye metrics

3. Make interpretations based on literature

4. Compare interpretations with performance data

Eye Metrics

15

Eye Movement Metric Interpretation Reference

Total Fixations

A higher number of fixations indicates less efficient search or more searching. (Goldberg & Kotval, 1999)

A higher number of fixations indicates more importance or a more noticeable area. (Poole, Ball, & Phillips, 2005)

Total Fixation Duration

Longer durations indicate more difficulty in extracting information. (Just & Carpenter, 1976)

Longer durations indicate deeper processing, or shallow processing (daydreaming). (Holmqvist, et al., 2011)

Longer durations indicate a more efficient strategy during fast moving stimuli. (Moraal, 1975)

Fixation Duration Mean Larger means indicate difficulty in interpreting or extracting of information. (Jacob & Karn, 2003)

Total Saccade Duration Longer durations indicate decreased processing. (Holmqvist, et al., 2011)Saccade Duration Mean Larger means indicate decreased processing. (Holmqvist, et al., 2011)

Fixation Rate Lower rates indicate higher workload or difficulty. (Nakayama, Takahashi, & Shimizu, 2002)

Fixation/Saccade Ratio Higher ratios indicate more information processing and searching. (Goldberg & Kotval, 1999)

Eye Metrics

16

Eye Movement Metric Interpretation Reference

Scanpath Length Longer lengths indicate less efficient search. (Goldberg, Stimson, Lewenstein, Scott, & Wichansky, 2002)

Avg. Saccade Amplitude

Larger amplitudes indicate more efficient search. (Goldberg & Kotval, 1999)Larger amplitudes indicate attention is better drawn from a distance.

(Goldberg, et al., 2002; Inamdar & Pomplun, 2003)

Smaller amplitudes indicate more search difficulty. (Zelinsky & Sheinberg, 1997)

Local Scanpaths

Longer fixations and smaller saccade amplitudes. (Groner, Walder, & Groner, 1984)

Indicates bottom-up control, more focal processing. (Groner, et al., 1984)

Indicates processing which is used to determine ‘what’ is being observed.

(Unema, Pannasch, Joos, & Velichkovsky, 2005)

Global Scanpaths

Shorter fixations and larger saccade amplitudes. (Groner, et al., 1984)

Indicates top-down control, more ambient processing. (Groner, et al., 1984)

Indicates processing which is used to determine ‘where’ and ‘how’ of what is being observed. (Unema, et al., 2005)

Experiment Results

17

1 of 2 [All Monitors]Eye Metric Sig. Effect Descriptive Stats F or X2 p

Total Fixations (#) complexity low(40): M=1136.4; SD=122.3high(41): M=1109.7; SD=118.8 F(1,34)=5.20 0.029

Total Fixation Duration (msec)

trial trial 1(40): M=262426; SD=43106trial 2(41): M=274063; SD=45195 F(1,34)=9.16 0.005

display

SC(30): M=272977; SD=27552HM(25): M=280616; SD=521 27VT(26): M=251111; SD=47981

F(2,72)=3.39 0.039

HM > VT Tukey's HSD < 0.05

Fixation Duration Mean (msec) display

SC(30): M=243.93; SD=20.32HM(25): M=247.70; SD=31.34VT(26): M=222.51; SD=22.62

F(2,34)=4.25 0.022

HM > VT Tukey's HSD < 0.05

Total Saccade Duration (msec) display

SC(30): M=265440; SD=31517HM(25): M=255129; SD=43939VT(26): M=290498; SD=40072

F(2,34)=3.10 0.057

VT > HM Tukey's HSD < 0.05

Table 3: Summary of analysis results from eye movement metrics [All Monitors].

Experiment Results

18

2 of 2 [All Monitors]Eye Metric Sig. Effect Descriptive Stats F or X2 p

Fixation Rate (#/sec) complexity* displayHM with steepest slope:

low(12): M=2.1436; SD=0.1735 high(13): M=2.0643; SD=0.2127 F(2,34)=3.40 0.045

Fixation / Saccade Ratio*Kruskal-Wallis display

SC(30): median=1.0747HM(25): median=1.0953VT(26): median=0.9640

X2(2)=8.17 0.017

(SC; HM) > VT Mann-Whit. U < 0.05

Scanpath Length (normal units)*Kruskal-Wallis

display


X2(2)=15.02 0.001

VT > (SC; HM) Mann-Whit. U < 0.05

Avg. Saccade Amplitude (arc deg)*Kruskal-Wallis

display


X2(2)=9.10 0.011

VT > (SC; HM) Mann-Whit. U < 0.05

Table 3: Summary of analysis results from eye movement metrics [All Monitors].

Experiment Results

19

Table 4: Summary of analysis results from eye movement metrics [Overview - Single Monitor].

[Overview - Single Monitor]Eye Metric Sig. Effect Descriptive Stats F p

Total Fixation Duration (msec) trial trial 1(40): M=95308; SD=28821trial 2(41): M=106690; SD=36770 F(1,34)=11.32 0.002

Fixation Duration Mean (msec) display


F(2,34)=7.16 0.002

(SC; HM) > VT Tukey's HSD < 0.05

Fixation / Saccade Ratio display


F(2,34)=3.63 0.036

SC > VT Tukey's HSD < 0.05

Experiment Results

20

Table 5: Summary of analysis results from eye movement metrics [Schematic - Single Monitor].

[Schematic - Single Monitor]Eye Metric Sig. Effect Descriptive Stats F p

Fixation Duration Mean (msec)

trial trial 1(40): M=228.35; SD=36.81trial 2(41): M=245.90; SD=38.47 F(1,34)=11.12 0.002

complexity low(40): M=228.94; SD=35.34high(41): M=245.32; SD=40.04 F(1,34)=9.27 0.004

Total Saccade Duration (msec) complexity low(40): M=34767; SD=20357

high(41): M=27185; SD=17801 F(1,34)=16.72 0.000

Saccade Duration Mean (msec) complexity low(40): M=139.85; SD=42.66

high(41): M=125.56; SD=36.50 F(1,34)=7.90 0.008

Fixation / Saccade Ratio

trial trial 1(40): M=1.895; SD=0.771trial 2(41): M=2.105; SD=0.800 F(1,34)=5.00 0.032


Experiment Results

21

Table 6: Summary of analysis results from eye movement metrics [MATB - Single Monitor].

[MATB - Single Monitor]Eye Metric Sig. Effect Descriptive Stats F p

Total Fixations (#)

trial trial 1(40): M=496.9; SD=119.1trial 2(41): M=447.9; SD=109.1

F(1,34)=11.37 0.002

display


F(2,34)=3.52 0.040


Total Fixation Duration (msec)

trial trial 1(40): M=114945; SD=34900trial 2(41): M=105275; SD=33584 F(1,34)=6.92 0.013

display

SC(30): M=115204; SD=32214HM(25): M=124036; SD=32349VT(26): M=90655; SD=30876

F(2,34)=4.28 0.021


Total Saccade Duration (msec) trial trial 1(40): M=87452; SD=21967

trial 2(41): M=79775; SD=22006 F(1,34)=6.48 0.016

Experiment Results

22

Table 7: Summary of analysis results from eye movement metrics [transitions].

[transitions]Eye Metric Sig. Effect Descriptive Stats F p

Transitions Between Monitors (#)


display


F(2,72)=2.97 0.058

(SC; VT) > HM *marginally Tukey's HSD < 0.05

Interpretations

23

Table 8: Eye movement interpretations of experimental data for [All Monitors].

1 of 2 [All Monitors]

Metric factor Interpretation(s)

Total Fix. Duration trial During trial 2: more difficulty in extracting information (deeper processing)

-OR- more efficient search strategy during fast moving stimuli

Total Fixations complexity During low complexity: more searching or less efficient searching occurred

Fixation Rate

complexity * display

For HM, during high complexity: higher workload or difficulty experiencedFor SC & VT, low & high complexity: no indication of any change

Total Fixation Duration

display HM more difficulty in extracting information (deeper processing) -OR- more efficient search strategy during fast moving stimuli compared to VT

Fixation Dur. Mean display HM more difficulty in interpreting or extracting of information compared to VT

Interpretations

24

Table 8: Eye movement interpretations of experimental data for [All Monitors].2 of 2 [All Monitors]


Total Saccade Duration

display VT decreased processing was experienced compared to HM

Fix. / Sac. Ratio display SC & HM increased processing and searching experienced compared to VT

Scanpath Length display VT experienced less efficient searching compared to SC & HM

Avg. Sac. Amplitude display VT experienced more efficient searching and better captured attention compared to

SC & HM

transitions complexity During low complexity: more transitions between monitors

transitions display SC & VT: more transitions between monitors compared to HM

Interpretations

25

Table 9: Eye movement interpretations of experimental data for [Overview - Single Monitor].

[Overview - Single Monitor]



-OR- more efficient search strategy during fast moving stimuli

Fixation Dur. Mean display SC & HM more difficulty in interpreting or extracting of information compared to VT

Fix. / Sac.Ratio display SC experienced more information processing and searching compared to VT

Interpretations

26

Table 10: Eye movement interpretations of experimental data for [Schematic - Single Monitor].

[Schematic - Single Monitor]


Fixation Dur. Mean trial During trial 2: more difficulty in interpreting or extracting of information

Fix. / Sac. Ratio trial During trial 2: more information processing and searching

Fixation Dur. Mean complexity During high complexity: more difficulty in interpreting or extracting of information

Total Sac. Duration complexity During low complexity: decreased processing occurred

Saccade Dur. Mean complexity During low complexity: decreased processing occurred

Fix. / Sac. Ratio complexity During high complexity: more information processing and searching

Interpretations

27

Table 11: Eye movement interpretations of experimental data for [MATB - Single Monitor].

[MATB - Single Monitor]


Total Fixations trial During trial 1: less efficient searching, more searching occurred


Total Sac.Duration trial During trial 1: decreased processing occurred

Total Fixations display SC & HM less efficient searching, more searching occurred compared to VT

Total Fix. Duration display SC & HM more difficulty in extracting information (deeper processing) compared to

VT

Discussion

28

What was found for the trial factor?

1. The data suggests that a more efficient search strategy was developed overall from trial 1 to trial 2

Overall, there is some evidence to support that several eye movement metrics (Total Fixations, Total Fixation Duration, Fixation Duration Mean, Total Saccade Duration, and Fixation/Saccade Ratio) could be used to gauge the degree of difficulty in information processing and the efficiency of search behavior for a simple process control monitoring task. This beneficial relationship may be best utilized for tasks which only require the monitoring of a single display, however the results here show promise for multi-display workstations as well. In a work environment, a baseline or comparison must first be established in order to detect significant variations within the metrics.

Discussion

29

What was found for the complexity factor?

1. The data suggests that there is less difficulty in processing within low complexity, and resulted in increased Click Accuracy

Overall, there is some evidence to support that several eye movement metrics (Total Fixations, Fixation Duration Mean, Total Saccade Duration, Saccade Duration Mean, and Fixation / Saccade Ratio) could be used to gauge the degree of difficulty in interpreting visual information, the amount of processing that is happening, and the efficiency of searching. Furthermore, these metrics could potentially provide insight into the performance within a specific task. Similar to above, a baseline or comparison must first be established in order to detect significant variations within the metrics.

Discussion

30

What was found for the display factor?

1. The data suggests that the Visual Thesaurus (VT) display seems to be the far better visualization out of the three. However, the Surface Chart (SC) display had better performance

2. It also suggests that the Heat Map (HM) display is the worst for the task, and this is in agreement with many of the performance metrics

Overall, using eye metrics to compare different visual stimuli (visualizations) is difficult because each display presents the operator with significantly different stimuli. It is recommended that these comparisons are only conducted within the same task (same visualization).

Conclusions

31

In sum…

1. Eye tracking measures were sensitive to both trial (experience) and complexity (difficulty)

2. Eye tracking measures were inconsistent to the performance results between displays

3. Eye tracking measures should be kept within-subject and within constant scenes

4. Process control applications of eye tracking could take advantage of monitoring operator’s behavior in order to determine if there are significant changes in cognitive processing (based on both experience level and task difficulty)

Questions

32

Ben Noah

Ph.D. Candidate

[email protected]

ASM Consortium

33

http://www.asmconsortium.net

http://www.asmconsortium.net/

References

34

Noah, B., Kim, J. H., Rothrock, L., & Tharanathan, A. (2014). Evaluating Alternate Visualization Techniques for Overview Displays in Process Control. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, (just-accepted), 00-00.

Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological bulletin, 91(2), 276.

Bjørneseth, F., Clarke, L., Dunlop, M., & Komandur, S. (2014). Towards an understanding of operator focus using eye-tracking in safety-critical maritime settings.

Bjørneseth, F. B., Renganayagalu, S. K., Dunlop, M. D., Homecker, E., & Komandur, S. (2012). Towards an experimental design framework for evaluation of dynamic workload and situational awareness in safety critical maritime settings. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers.

Blascheck, T., Kurzhals, K., Raschke, M., Burch, M., Weiskopf, D., & Ertl, T. (2014). State-of-the-art of visualization for eye tracking data. Paper presented at the Proceedings of EuroVis.

Bowie, M. (Producer). (2009, 07/15/2014). Aqumin upgrades heatmap displays. Retrieved from http://www.waterstechnology.com/inside-market-data/news/1615653/aqumin-upgrades-heatmap-displays

Breslow, L. A., Gartenberg, D., Malcolm McCurry, J., & Gregory Trafton, J. (2014). Dynamic Operator Overload: A Model for Predicting Workload During Supervisory Control. Human-Machine Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 44(1), 30-40.

Bruneau, D., Sasse, M. A., & McCarthy, J. (2002). The eyes never lie: The use of eye tracking data in HCI research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the CHI.

De Vries, J. P., Hooge, I. T., & Verstraten, F. A. (2014). Saccades toward the target are planned as sequences rather than as single steps. Psychological science, 25(1), 215-223.

Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice (Vol. 373): Springer.

References

35

Garr, M. E., Rojicek, J., & Vass, J. (2011). Heatmap timeline for visualization of time series data: Google Patents.

Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(6), 631-645.

Goldberg, J. H., Stimson, M. J., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., & Wichansky, A. M. (2002). Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications.

Goldberg, J. H., & Wichansky, A. M. (2003). Eye tracking in usability evaluation: A practitioner’s guide. The mind’s eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research, 573-605.

Grinstein, G., Trutschl, M., & Cvek, U. (2001). High-dimensional visualizations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Workshop on Visual Data Mining, ACM Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.

Groner, R., Walder, F., & Groner, M. (1984). Looking at faces: Local and global aspects of scanpaths. Advances in Psychology, 22, 523-533.

Hauland, G. (2003). Measuring team situation awareness by means of eye movement data. Paper presented at the Proceedings of HCI International.

Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures: Oxford University Press.

Inamdar, I., & Pomplun, M. (2003). Comparative search reveals the tradeoff between eye movements and working memory use in visual tasks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston.

Jacob, R. J., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 4.

Josephson, S., & Holmes, M. E. (2002). Visual attention to repeated internet images: testing the scanpath theory on the world wide web. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications.

References

36

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441-480.

Kang, Z., & Landry, S. J. (2014). Using Scanpaths as a Learning Method for a Conflict Detection Task of Multiple Target Tracking. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 0018720814523066.

Liechty, J., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2003). Global and local covert visual attention: Evidence from a Bayesian hidden Markov model. Psychometrika, 68(4), 519-541.

Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(1), 6-14.

MacEachren, A. M. (2004). How maps work: representation, visualization, and design: Guilford Press.

Marlin, T. E. (1995). Process Control: McGraw-Hill New York.

Martinez-Conde, S., Macknik, S. L., & Hubel, D. H. (2000). Microsaccadic eye movements and firing of single cells in the striate cortex of macaque monkeys. Nature neuroscience, 3(3), 251-258.

Matlin, M. W. (2005). Cognition . Hoboken: NJ: Wiley.

Miller Jr, W. D. (2010). The US air force-developed adaptation of the multi-attribute task battery for the assessment of human operator workload and strategic behavior: DTIC Document.

Moraal, J. (1975). The analysis of an inspection task in the steel industry. Human reliability in quality control, 217-230.

Nakayama, M., Takahashi, K., & Shimizu, Y. (2002). The act of task difficulty and eye-movement frequency for the'Oculo-motor indices'. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications.

Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering: Elsevier.

Ooms, K., De Maeyer, P., & Fack, V. (2014). Study of the attentive behavior of novice and expert map users using eye tracking. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 41(1), 37-54.

References

37

Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2005). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Current status and future. In Prospects, Chapter in C. Ghaoui (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Pennsylvania: Idea Group.

Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. Encyclopedia of human computer interaction, 211-219.

Poole, A., Ball, L. J., & Phillips, P. (2005). In search of salience: A response-time and eye-movement analysis of bookmark recognition People and Computers XVIII—Design for Life (pp. 363-378): Springer.

Raschke, M., Herr, D., Blascheck, T., Ertl, T., Burch, M., Willmann, S., & Schrauf, M. (2014). A visual approach for scan path comparison. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications.

Ratwani, R. M., McCurry, J. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2010). Single operator, multiple robots: an eye movement based theoretic model of operator situation awareness. Paper presented at the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on.

Rayner, K. (1995). Eye movements and cognitive processes in reading, visual search, and scene perception. Studies in Visual Information Processing, 6, 3-22.

Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: howto plan, design, and conduct effective tests : John Wiley & Sons.

Salmon, P., Stanton, N., Walker, G., & Green, D. (2006). Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. Applied ergonomics, 37(2), 225-238.

Schreiber, F. (2008). Visualization Bioinformatics (pp. 441-450): Springer.

Song, Y.-l., Shi, X.-p., & Wang, J.-D. (2011). The application of TeeChart control in natural gas development. Paper presented at the Electronic and Mechanical Engineering and Information Technology (EMEIT), 2011 International Conference on.

References

38

Stark, L. W., & Ellis, S. R. (1981). Scanpaths revisited: Cognitive models direct active looking.

Szulewski, A., Fernando, S. M., Baylis, J., & Howes, D. (2014). Increasing Pupil Size Is Associated with Increasing Cognitive Processing Demands: A Pilot Study Using a Mobile Eye-Tracking Device. Open Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2014.

Tharanathan, A., Bullemer, P., Laberge, J., Reising, D. V., & Mclain, R. (2012). Impact of functional and schematic overview displays on console operators’ situation awareness. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1555343412440694.

Triesch, J., Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Sullivan, B. T. (2003). What you see is what you need. Journal of Vision, 3(1), 9.

Unema, P. J., Pannasch, S., Joos, M., & Velichkovsky, B. M. (2005). Time course of information processing during scene perception: The relationship between saccade amplitude and fixation duration. Visual Cognition, 12(3), 473-494.

van Leeuwen, P., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. (2014). Vertical field of view restriction in driver training: A simulator-based evaluation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 24, 169-182.

Willems, B., Allen, R. C., & Stein, E. S. (1999). Air traffic control specialist visual scanning II: Task load, visual noise, and intrusions into controlled airspace: DTIC Document.

Zelinsky, G. J., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1997). Eye movements during parallel–serial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(1), 244.

benjamin noah, jung-hyup kim, ling rothrock, & anand tharanathan eye tracking within process...

Documents

eye metrics

performance metrics

eye tracking metrics

better performance

implementation of eye

alternative displays

matb slide

anand tharanathan eye