asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (06/14/91)
How about tossing that old mouse into the trash can, and construct a device which looks into your eyes while you're reading the screen, and can actually track the precise location of what you're looking at? Rather than "clicking" a mouse, you just touch a button when you want to select the word or screen-button that's in your current "gaze." Natur- ally, a cursor follows your gaze around the screen, and touching the button flashes the cursor (or inverts the screen button, whatever) for immediate feedback. Such devices already exist, but they require physical contact with the eyeball. This is undesireable (at least to me!) This may sound rather like science-fiction, but it's probably possible. Don't forget, if anybody _does_ invent such a thing, you heard it here first! -- Alvin ===== asylvain@felix.UUCP ===== hplabs!felix!asylvain ===== "hplabs!felix!asylvain"@uunet.uu.net (I always try to respond to mail, if possible. If you don't hear back from me, try changing "hplabs" to "ccicpg," "spsd," or "lawnet.") DISCLAIMER: It's all in fun, folks, no flames intended. Any similarity between my opinion and that of my employer is purely coincidental and sufficient reason to change my opinion, although I'll still be right.
spf@cbnewsl.att.com (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) (06/15/91)
From article <164661@felix.UUCP>, by asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain): > How about tossing that old mouse into the trash can, and construct a > device which looks into your eyes while you're reading the screen, and > can actually track the precise location of what you're looking at? > > Such devices already exist, but they require physical contact with the > eyeball. This is undesireable (at least to me!) They exist in non-contact form. One design, for example, uses reflectance of the eye surface to measure eye movements. Whether this would be useful in general is a good question. It might make people to "aware" of their eye movements, many of which are generally unknown to the subject. Reminds me of an old Peanuts cartoon: Linus (to Lucy): "Have you ever been aware of your tongue?" (he then leaves the room) Lucy (getting disturbed look on face): "Argghh!" (runs after him holding her mouth) Steve
marsh@thelonius.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall 617 271-8784) (06/15/91)
In article <164661@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >How about tossing that old mouse into the trash can, and construct a >device which looks into your eyes while you're reading the screen, and >can actually track the precise location of what you're looking at? > >Rather than "clicking" a mouse, you just touch a button when you want to >select the word or screen-button that's in your current "gaze." Natur- >ally, a cursor follows your gaze around the screen, and touching the >button flashes the cursor (or inverts the screen button, whatever) for >immediate feedback. > >Such devices already exist, but they require physical contact with the >eyeball. This is undesireable (at least to me!) The problem is only partly with the fact that existing devices for tracking your eyes are cumbersome and unpleasant to use. There are reasonable systems that track your eyes visually using cameras and simple image recognition, but they still require that you keep your head in a 1' cubic area. The bigger problem is that you don't really look at things the way you think you do. First of all, blinking can be a problem, but bigger problems come from the fact that your eye doesn't stay fixed on any one place. It moves about very rapidly, and only generally stays in the area that you think you're looking directly at. It also jumps when you move to look at another area, and takes a fairly long period of time to settle down at the new position. So, you can't just replace the current pointing device with an eye tracker, even if it could track your eye perfectly. You need a new model of how to determine the "selected area" based on the raw eye position values, and this work needs more research into how people really see things. -- Ralph Marshall (marsh@linus.mitre.org) Disclaimer: Often wrong but never in doubt... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mac@cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun) (06/15/91)
In <164661@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin Sylvain) writes: >How about tossing that old mouse into the trash can, and construct a >device which looks into your eyes while you're reading the screen, and >can actually track the precise location of what you're looking at? >Rather than "clicking" a mouse, you just touch a button when you want to >select the word or screen-button that's in your current "gaze.".... >Such devices already exist, but they require physical contact with the >eyeball. This is undesireable (at least to me!) >Don't forget, if anybody _does_ invent such a thing, you heard it here first! Unfortunately, you are NOT first, or even second! The simplist I've heard of "flickers" different parts of the screen at different rates and monitors brain waves to deduce at which part the eye is looking. Fancier (and more expensive) versions monitor the reflection of a small lamp from the cornea of the eye and calculate just where it's looking. --Myron. -- # Myron A. Calhoun, Ph.D. E.E.; Associate Professor (913) 539-4448 home # INTERNET: mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.2) 532-6350 work # UUCP: ...rutgers!ksuvax1!harry!mac 532-7353 fax # AT&T Mail: attmail!ksuvax1!mac W0PBV @ K0VAY.KS.USA.NA
vrr@cbnewsj.att.com (veenu.r.rashid) (06/15/91)
In article <164661@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >How about tossing that old mouse into the trash can, and construct a >device which looks into your eyes while you're reading the screen, and >can actually track the precise location of what you're looking at? > >Rather than "clicking" a mouse, you just touch a button when you want to >select the word or screen-button that's in your current "gaze." Natur- >ally, a cursor follows your gaze around the screen, and touching the >button flashes the cursor (or inverts the screen button, whatever) for >immediate feedback. > >Such devices already exist, but they require physical contact with the >eyeball. This is undesireable (at least to me!) I don't know where I heard this from, but some company in England has created a tracking system which is mounted on a frame around the eye. A tiny laser head uses microscopic pulses to write the image to the retina. Motors allow it to track the pupil as it moves. A lot of development time was spent finding the correct intensities. Check out sci.virtual-worlds and Human Interface Technology Lab (HITL) for more information. Veenu vrr@cbnewsj.att.com
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun14.192945.16681@linus.mitre.org> marsh@thelonius.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall 617 271-8784) writes: >The problem is only partly with the fact that existing devices for >tracking your eyes are cumbersome and unpleasant to use. There are >reasonable systems that track your eyes visually using cameras and >simple image recognition, but they still require that you keep your >head in a 1' cubic area. If the restriction of range is with respect to the cameras, you could make some sort of headgear that would carry some of the sensors/cameras. I don't know what the theoretical limitations would be, but I'd think with fiber optics you could do something. There was an unsuccessful attempt at a sonic pointer via headgear marketed for the Macintosh a few years back. It wasn't uncomfortable to use, and some people could adapt to it fairly quickly. >The bigger problem is that you don't really look at things the way you >think you do. First of all, blinking can be a problem, but bigger >problems come from the fact that your eye doesn't stay fixed on any >one place. It moves about very rapidly, and only generally stays in >the area that you think you're looking directly at. It also jumps >when you move to look at another area, and takes a fairly long period >of time to settle down at the new position. It's been a few years since I played with an eye-tracker in a lab, but I dont remember any serious problems with losing tracking due to blinking. The question is whether the device could be usable in spite of the microsaccades and saccades (jumps in fixation). You don't have to get the machine to do all the work. As long as the error in the system is less than the precision you need, people can adapt. >So, you can't just replace the current pointing device with an eye >tracker, even if it could track your eye perfectly. You need a new >model of how to determine the "selected area" based on the raw eye >position values, and this work needs more research into how people >really see things. My intuition is that you could use an eye tracker as a mouse within the current limits of technology (perhaps not economically.) It is hard to keep the eye fixated very long, but all you need is the duration of a blink, or perhaps two. One blink to indicate the beginning of a selection, and two for the end. All the equipment exists. Someone just needs to decide that the experiment is worth the resources necessary.
mgreen@cs.toronto.edu (Marc Green) (06/17/91)
>From: rpotter@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Potter) >In article <91Jun14.160659edt.6227@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, mgreen@cs.toronto.edu (Marc Green) writes: >>... there is a big difference between knowing the position of the eye and the >>locus of gaze. >Huh? How can the locus of gaze move independantly of the eyeballs? >-- >Robert Potter rpotter@grip.cis.upenn.edu >GRASP laboratory, Univ. of Pennsylvania I didn't say that locus of gaze moves independently of eye position. I said that they are not the same. When an observer looks straight ahead, his eye may not be pointed straight ahead. There's lots of research on this. Don't be lazy, look it up. >From: pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) >mgreen@cs.toronto.edu (Marc Green) writes: >king of them all is the SRI double Purkinje tracker which detects >changes in the position of the Purkinje images in the the eye. >(Purkinje images are create by the different refractive indices of >different ocular media. All you need is about $60K and you have one of >your very own. There are also cheaper methods, glasses that bounce >infrared beams of the eye, EOG's which measure activity in the >ocular-motor muscles, etc. These have problems with accuracy and >reliability and many operate only in the horizontal plane. >All trackers require careful and frequent calibration. Further, It is >not easy to tell where a person is looking, even if you know the >position of the pupil; there is a big difference between knowing the >position of the eye and the locus of gaze. People also make many -How do they cope with the relative position of the head and the screen? ->Am I to hold my head absolute still? It depends. the SRI tracker requires careful head positioning, while EOG's, corneal reflection, etc. don't. >involuntary eye movements, so a tracker would unintentional cause -Consider the aforementioned cursor. Are you saying, that just as I am -about to press the activate button, my eyes may flicker? (i.e. can one -have trouble "fixing" ones looking direction) Yes. The ability to hold your eyes still is a very rare talent. (I know because we used to look for such people in vision research.) The amount of involuntary movement varies from peron to person. >actions to occur. I don't think that eye trackers will ever become >popular. Just too many problems. >I hope they will become popular, and I expect our technology to advance >so as to solve this. It is just too great an interface to miss... Why? If it has a lot of problems, then it isn't so great. Hey, why not have an interface that works by thought. That would be great too - it only has a few problems. Just think, on your very own screen - Mosters from the Id. Marc Green Trent University
schwartz@nynexst.com (S. H. Schwartz) (06/17/91)
In article <164661@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >Such devices already exist, but they require physical contact with the >eyeball. This is undesireable (at least to me!) The EyeGaze system was demo-ed at CHI-91. It bounces an infrared beam off the retina. A gaze prolonged > 200 msec is considered a selection. A "Pause" button temporarily suspends selection, to permit "browsing." >Don't forget, if anybody _does_ invent such a thing, you heard it here >first! No, I didn't. :-) -- S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains NY 10604
doehr@magellan.den.mmc.com (Brett B. Doehr) (06/18/91)
In article <91Jun17.083128edt.6299@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, mgreen@cs.toronto.edu (Marc Green) writes: |> >From: rpotter@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Potter) |> |> [whole bunch of stuff deleted] |> |> -Consider the aforementioned cursor. Are you saying, that just as I am |> -about to press the activate button, my eyes may flicker? (i.e. can one |> -have trouble "fixing" ones looking direction) |> |> Yes. The ability to hold your eyes still is a very rare talent. (I |> know because we used to look for such people in vision research.) The |> amount of involuntary movement varies from peron to person. |> |> >actions to occur. I don't think that eye trackers will ever become |> >popular. Just too many problems. |> |> >I hope they will become popular, and I expect our technology to advance |> >so as to solve this. It is just too great an interface to miss... |> |> Why? If it has a lot of problems, then it isn't so great. Hey, why not |> have an interface that works by thought. That would be great too - it |> only has a few problems. Just think, on your very own screen - Mosters |> from the Id. |> |> Marc Green |> Trent University You mention that the ability to hold your *eyes* still is a very rare talent, yet you want an interface that works by thought?!! You must indeed be very mentally disciplined, to never have your thoughts drift while (beer, lake, and a...excuse me) sitting at a computer, especially while waiting for a task to complete. 8-). I can imagine it being embarrassing if my boss came by and saw on the screen what I think about when I *should* be working. On the plus side, system security would probably be pretty easy... --Brett. ============================================================| Brett B. Doehr Martin Marietta Astronautics Group | Voice: (303) 977-1504 Internet: doehr@den.mmc.com | Fax: (303) 977-1530 America Online: BrettBD | "Writing software that only a mother could love..." | ============================================================|
mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun14.172700.4446@cbnewsl.att.com> spf@cbnewsl.att.com (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) writes: >From article <164661@felix.UUCP>, by asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain): >> How about tossing that old mouse into the trash can, and construct a >> device which looks into your eyes while you're reading the screen, and >> can actually track the precise location of what you're looking at? >> >> Such devices already exist, but they require physical contact with the >> eyeball. This is undesireable (at least to me!) > >They exist in non-contact form. One design, for example, uses reflectance >of the eye surface to measure eye movements. Quite true. They are used in psychological experiments to monitor eye fixation patterns. This could be quite useful for virtual reality. Imagine teaming it up with a stereo cold cathode display :-) * * * * * * ====================== Meir Green * * * * * * ====================== (Internet) mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu * * * * * * ====================== meir@msb.com mig@asteroids.cs.columbia.edu * * * * * * ====================== (Amateur Radio) N2JPG
mcohen@ac-next2 (Michael Cohen) (06/19/91)
In article <91Jun17.083128edt.6299@neat.cs.toronto.edu> mgreen@cs.toronto.edu (Marc Green) writes: > [...] > Yes. The ability to hold your eyes still is a very rare talent. (I > know because we used to look for such people in vision research.) The > amount of involuntary movement varies from peron to person. I remember reading that the the actors in a science fiction movie, i think it was "Futureworld" or "Westworld", playing robots, had to learn not to move their eyes. This is particularly difficult when the head turns, since one has a natural inclination to allow the eyes to lead. Michael Cohen Room S-08 NTT Human Interface Labs 3-9-11, Midori-cho, Musashino-shi Tokyo 180 Japan voice: [+81](422)59-2077 fax: [+81](422)60-7808 (NeXT) email: mcohen%acoustic-srx1.ntt.jp@relay.cs.net
csilva@maestro.mitre.org (Carlos Silva) (06/19/91)
Yes they do exist and function by using to reflection points on the eyeball. When the reflection point on the surface of the eye moves, the cursor moves (simplified explanation). They are excellent and fun to use, we had one by LC technologies (60k or so) at the Contel Tech Center Intelligent Systems lab, now merged with GTE Laboratories where the eye tracker was sent. However, the eye tracker does not let you move your head more than 1-3 inches or the light that is shining on your eye will miss your eye. LC is designing a device that will track head movement within a 12 inch square area so that it will work more naturally. There are already eye trackers that do this but they are in the 100K-150K range. carlos silva