04-02-2015, 01:15 PM
friends i want full documentation on this topic of eye movement based _human computer interaction techniqes plss send my mail sandeepreddy684[at]gmail.com
|
seminar report on eye movement based human computer interaction
|
friends i want full documentation on this topic of eye movement based _human computer interaction techniqes plss send my mail sandeepreddy684[at]gmail.com
07-04-2017, 03:00 PM
With advancement in technology the number of computing devices a person uses is increasing and there is a need for faster, non-intrusive methods of communicating with these devices. In this sense, the movement of the eye is a promising means of entry for the interaction of the human computer. In this paper we discuss several eye tracking techniques that can be used to find the user's line of sight. Next, we discussed some of the algorithms that can be used to implement these eye tracking techniques. The main objective of this work is to propose new applications using the eye look that are suitable for the standard user. These applications will enhance the user's reading experience and make reading a more joyful task.
In the search for better interfaces between users and their computers, an additional mode of communication between the two parties would be very useful. The problem of human-machine interaction can be seen as two powerful information processors (humans and computers) trying to communicate with one another through a narrow, narrow-band interface. You need faster, more natural, more convenient (and, in particular, more parallel, less sequential) means for users and computers to exchange information to increase useful bandwidth through that interface.
As with other areas of user interface design, considerable leverage can be obtained by drawing analogies that use people's existing skills to operate in the natural environment and looking for ways to apply them to communication with a computer. Direct manipulation interfaces have been very successful, especially with beginner users, largely because they are based on analogies with existing human skills (aiming, grasping, moving objects in physical space), rather than trained behaviors; And virtual realities promise to take advantage of existing physical skills of navigation and manipulation of people.
These notions are more difficult to extend to the interaction based on the ocular movement, since few objects in the real world respond to the ocular movements of the people. The main exception is, of course, other people: they detect and respond to being looked directly and, to a lesser and much less precise degree, to what one may be seeing. In describing human-computer interaction based on ocular movement, we can establish two distinctions: one is in the nature of the user's eye movements and the other in the nature of the responses.
Each of them could be seen as natural (ie based on a corresponding real world analogy) or unnatural (without real-world counterpart):
• In the world created by an eye-movement-based interface, users can move their eyes to scan the scene, just as they would in a real-world scene, unaffected by the presence of an eye tracking team) . The alternative is to instruct the users of the interface based on the movement of the eye so that they move their eyes in particular ways, not necessarily those that would have been used if they were left to their own devices, to act the system (abnormal movements or the erudite eye ).
• On the response axis, objects could respond to the movements of a user's eyes in a natural way, that is, the object responds to the user's gaze in the same way as real objects. As noted, there is a limited scope from which to draw such analogies in the real world. The alternative is an unnatural response, where objects respond in ways not experienced in the real world. The area of natural eye movement / natural response is difficult, because it is based on a limited and subtle domain, mainly in how people respond to the gaze of other people.
Starker and Bolt provide an excellent example of this, based on the analogy of a guide or a host who esteems the interests of the visitor by their looks. In the work described in this chapter, we try to use natural (untrained) eye movements as input, but we provide different responses to those of the real world. This is a compromise between the complete analogy with the real world and a completely artificial interface. We present a screen and allow the user to observe it with their normal scanning mechanisms, but such scans then induce computer responses that are not normally displayed by real world objects.
In the search for better interfaces between users and their computers, an additional mode of communication between the two parties would be very useful. The problem of human-machine interaction can be seen as two powerful information processors (humans and computers) trying to communicate with one another through a narrow, narrow-band interface. You need faster, more natural, more convenient (and, in particular, more parallel, less sequential) means for users and computers to exchange information to increase useful bandwidth through that interface.
As with other areas of user interface design, considerable leverage can be obtained by drawing analogies that use people's existing skills to operate in the natural environment and looking for ways to apply them to communication with a computer. Direct manipulation interfaces have been very successful, especially with beginner users, largely because they are based on analogies with existing human skills (aiming, grasping, moving objects in physical space), rather than trained behaviors; And virtual realities promise to take advantage of existing physical skills of navigation and manipulation of people.
These notions are more difficult to extend to the interaction based on the ocular movement, since few objects in the real world respond to the ocular movements of the people. The main exception is, of course, other people: they detect and respond to being looked directly and, to a lesser and much less precise degree, to what one may be seeing. In describing human-computer interaction based on ocular movement, we can establish two distinctions: one is in the nature of the user's eye movements and the other in the nature of the responses.
Each of them could be seen as natural (ie based on a corresponding real world analogy) or unnatural (without real-world counterpart):
• In the world created by an eye-movement-based interface, users can move their eyes to scan the scene, just as they would in a real-world scene, unaffected by the presence of an eye tracking team) . The alternative is to instruct the users of the interface based on the movement of the eye so that they move their eyes in particular ways, not necessarily those that would have been used if they were left to their own devices, to act the system (abnormal movements or the erudite eye ).
• On the response axis, objects could respond to the movements of a user's eyes in a natural way, that is, the object responds to the user's gaze in the same way as real objects. As noted, there is a limited scope from which to draw such analogies in the real world. The alternative is an unnatural response, where objects respond in ways not experienced in the real world. The area of natural eye movement / natural response is difficult, because it is based on a limited and subtle domain, mainly in how people respond to the gaze of other people.
Starker and Bolt provide an excellent example of this, based on the analogy of a guide or a host who esteems the interests of the visitor by their looks. In the work described in this chapter, we try to use natural (untrained) eye movements as input, but we provide different responses to those of the real world. This is a compromise between the complete analogy with the real world and a completely artificial interface. We present a screen and allow the user to observe it with their normal scanning mechanisms, but such scans then induce computer responses that are not normally displayed by real world objects.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
