skip to main content
research-article

Eye Tracking Interaction on Unmodified Mobile VR Headsets Using the Selfie Camera

Published:20 May 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Input methods for interaction in smartphone-based virtual and mixed reality (VR/MR) are currently based on uncomfortable head tracking controlling a pointer on the screen. User fixations are a fast and natural input method for VR/MR interaction. Previously, eye tracking in mobile VR suffered from low accuracy, long processing time, and the need for hardware add-ons such as anti-reflective lens coating and infrared emitters. We present an innovative mobile VR eye tracking methodology utilizing only the eye images from the front-facing (selfie) camera through the headset’s lens, without any modifications. Our system first enhances the low-contrast, poorly lit eye images by applying a pipeline of customised low-level image enhancements suppressing obtrusive lens reflections. We then propose an iris region-of-interest detection algorithm that is run only once. This increases the iris tracking speed by reducing the iris search space in mobile devices. We iteratively fit a customised geometric model to the iris to refine its coordinates. We display a thin bezel of light at the top edge of the screen for constant illumination. A confidence metric calculates the probability of successful iris detection. Calibration and linear gaze mapping between the estimated iris centroid and physical pixels on the screen results in low latency, real-time iris tracking. A formal study confirmed that our system’s accuracy is similar to eye trackers in commercial VR headsets in the central part of the headset’s field-of-view. In a VR game, gaze-driven user completion time was as fast as with head-tracked interaction, without the need for consecutive head motions. In a VR panorama viewer, users could successfully switch between panoramas using gaze.

References

  1. [n.d.]. OpenCV Library. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://opencv.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [n.d.]. XCode. Retrieved September 9, 2019 from https://developer.apple.com/xcode/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Karan Ahuja, Rahul Islam, Varun Parashar, Kuntal Dey, Chris Harrison, and Mayank Goel. 2018. EyeSpyVR: Interactive eye sensing using off-the-shelf, smartphone-based VR headsets. Proc. ACM Interact. Mobile Wearable Ubiq. Technol. 2, 2 (2018), 57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Robert W. Baloh, Andrew W. Sills, Warren E. Kumley, and Vicente Honrubia. 1975. Quantitative measurement of saccade amplitude, duration, and velocity. Neurology 25, 11 (1975), 1065–1065.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Gary Bradski and Adrian Kaehler. 2008. Learning OpenCV: Computer Vision with the OpenCV Library. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Juan J. Cerrolaza, Arantxa Villanueva, and Rafael Cabeza. 2012. Study of polynomial mapping functions in video-oculography eye trackers. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 19, 2 (2012), 10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Panagiotis Drakopoulos, George Alex Koulieris, and Katerina Mania. 2020. Front camera eye tracking for mobile VR. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW’20). IEEE, 643–644.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Andrew T. Duchowski. 2018. Gaze-based interaction: A 30 year retrospective. Comput. Graph. 73 (2018), 59–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Anna Maria Feit, Shane Williams, Arturo Toledo, Ann Paradiso, Harish Kulkarni, Shaun Kane, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2017. Toward everyday gaze input: Accuracy and precision of eye tracking and implications for design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1118–1130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Martin A. Fischler and Robert C. Bolles. 1981. Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis & automated cartography. Commun. ACM 24, 6 (1981), 381–395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Andrew Fitzgibbon, Maurizio Pilu, and Robert B. Fisher. 1999. Direct least square fitting of ellipses. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 21, 5 (1999), 476–480.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Wolfgang Fuhl, Thomas Kübler, Katrin Sippel, Wolfgang Rosenstiel, and Enkelejda Kasneci. 2015. Excuse: Robust pupil detection in real-world scenarios. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns. Springer, 39–51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Wolfgang Fuhl, Thiago C. Santini, Thomas Kübler, and Enkelejda Kasneci. 2016. Else: Ellipse selection for robust pupil detection in real-world environments. In Proceedings of the 9th Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications. ACM, 123–130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Wenshuo Gao, Xiaoguang Zhang, Lei Yang, and Huizhong Liu. 2010. An improved Sobel edge detection. In Proceedings of the 2010 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, Vol. 5. IEEE, 67–71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Scott W. Greenwald, Luke Loreti, Markus Funk, Ronen Zilberman, and Pattie Maes. 2016. Eye gaze tracking with google cardboard using purkinje images. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM, 19–22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Hiroyuki Hakoda, Wataru Yamada, and Hiroyuki Manabe. 2017. Eye tracking using built-in camera for smartphone-based HMD. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’17). Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 15–16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kenneth Holmqvist, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, and Joost Van de Weijer. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Anthony J. Hornof and Tim Halverson. 2002. Cleaning up systematic error in eye-tracking data by using required fixation locations. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 34, 4 (2002), 592–604.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Michael Xuelin Huang, Jiajia Li, Grace Ngai, and Hong Va Leong. 2017. Screenglint: Practical, in-situ gaze estimation on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2546–2557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. John Illingworth and Josef Kittler. 1988. A survey of the Hough transform. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 44, 1 (1988), 87–116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Jakob. 1998. The use of eye movements in human-computer interaction techniques: What you look at is what you get. In Readings in Intelligent User Interfaces (1998), 65–83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Amir-Homayoun Javadi, Zahra Hakimi, Morteza Barati, Vincent Walsh, and Lili Tcheang. 2015. SET: A pupil detection method using sinusoidal approximation. Front. Neuroeng. 8 (2015), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Brendan John, Sanjeev Koppal, and Eakta Jain. 2019. EyeVEIL: Degrading iris authentication in eye tracking headsets. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications. 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Anuradha Kar and Peter Corcoran. 2017. A review and analysis of eye-gaze estimation systems, algorithms and performance evaluation methods in consumer platforms. IEEE Access 5 (2017), 16495–16519.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Pawel Kasprowski, Katarzyna Hareżlak, and Mateusz Stasch. 2014. Guidelines for the eye tracker calibration using points of regard. In Information Technologies in Biomedicine, Vol. 4. Springer, 225–236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Moritz Kassner, William Patera, and Andreas Bulling. 2014. Pupil: An open source platform for pervasive eye tracking and mobile gaze-based interaction. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication. ACM, 1151–1160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Dmytro Katrychuk, Henry K. Griffith, and Oleg V. Komogortsev. 2019. Power-efficient and shift-robust eye-tracking sensor for portable VR headsets. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications. 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. George Alex Koulieris, Kaan Akşit, Michael Stengel, R. K. Mantiuk, Katerina Mania, and Christian Richardt. 2019. Near-eye display and tracking technologies for virtual and augmented reality. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 38. 493–519.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. George Alex Koulieris, George Drettakis, Douglas Cunningham, and Katerina Mania. 2016. Gaze prediction using machine learning for dynamic stereo manipulation in games. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR’16). IEEE, 113–120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Kyle Krafka, Aditya Khosla, Petr Kellnhofer, Harini Kannan, Suchendra Bhandarkar, Wojciech Matusik, and Antonio Torralba. 2016. Eye tracking for everyone. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2176–2184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Dongheng Li, David Winfield, and Derrick J. Parkhurst. 2005. Starburst: A hybrid algorithm for video-based eye tracking combining feature-based and model-based approaches. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPR’05). 79–79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tianxing Li, Qiang Liu, and Xia Zhou. 2017. Ultra-low power gaze tracking for virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Embedded Network Sensor Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Denis Pelisson and Alain Guillaume. 2009. Eye-Head Coordination. Springer, Berlin, 1545–1548. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-29678-2_3257Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Thiago Santini, Wolfgang Fuhl, and Enkelejda Kasneci. 2018. PuRe: Robust pupil detection for real-time pervasive eye tracking. Comput. Vis. Image Understand. 170 (2018), 40–50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Nikolaos Sidorakis, George Alex Koulieris, and Katerina Mania. 2015. Binocular eye-tracking for the control of a 3D immersive multimedia user interface. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 1st Workshop on Everyday Virtual Reality (WEVR’15). 15–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Alexandra Sipatchin, Siegfried Wahl, and Katharina Rifai. 2020. Accuracy and precision of the HTC VIVE PRO eye tracking in head-restrained and head-free conditions. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 61, 7 (2020), 5071–5071.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Alexandra Sipatchin, Siegfried Wahl, and Katharina Rifai. 2020. Eye-tracking for low vision with virtual reality (VR): Testing status quo usability of the HTC Vive Pro Eye. bioRxiv (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Dave M. Stampe. 1993. Heuristic filtering and reliable calibration methods for video-based pupil-tracking systems. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 25, 2 (1993), 137–142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Lech Świrski, Andreas Bulling, and Neil Dodgson. 2012. Robust real-time pupil tracking in highly off-axis images. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, 173–176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Tsuji and Matsumoto. 1978. Detection of ellipses by a modified Hough transformation. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-27, 8 (1978), 777–781.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Erroll Wood and Andreas Bulling. 2014. Eyetab: Model-based gaze estimation on unmodified tablet computers. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. 207–210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Zhiwei Zhu and Qiang Ji. 2004. Eye and gaze tracking for interactive graphic display. Mach. Vis. Appl. 15, 3 (2004), 139–148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Zhiwei Zhu, Qiang Ji, and Kristin P Bennett. 2006. Nonlinear eye gaze mapping function estimation via support vector regression. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’06), Vol. 1. IEEE, 1132–1135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Karel Zuiderveld. 1994. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization. In Graphics Gems IV. Academic Press Professional, 474–485.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Eye Tracking Interaction on Unmodified Mobile VR Headsets Using the Selfie Camera

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
      ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 18, Issue 3
      July 2021
      148 pages
      ISSN:1544-3558
      EISSN:1544-3965
      DOI:10.1145/3467015
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 May 2021
      • Revised: 1 February 2021
      • Accepted: 1 February 2021
      • Received: 1 July 2020
      Published in tap Volume 18, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format