skip to main content
research-article

Scanpath Trend Analysis on Web Pages: Clustering Eye Tracking Scanpaths

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 November 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Eye tracking studies have widely been used in improving the design and usability of web pages and in the research of understanding how users navigate them. However, there is limited research in clustering users’ eye movement sequences (i.e., scanpaths) on web pages to identify a general direction they follow. Existing research tends to be reductionist, which means that the resulting path is so short that it is not useful. Moreover, there is little work on correlating users’ scanpaths with visual elements of web pages and the underlying source code, which means the result cannot be used for further processing. In order to address these limitations, we introduce a new concept in clustering scanpaths called Scanpath Trend Analysis (STA) that not only considers the visual elements visited by all users, but also considers the visual elements visited by the majority in any order. We present an algorithm which automatically does this trend analysis to identify a trending scanpath for multiple web users in terms of visual elements of a web page. In contrast to existing research, the STA algorithm first analyzes the most visited visual elements in given scanpaths, clusters the scanpaths by arranging these visual elements based on their overall positions in the individual scanpaths, and then constructs a trending scanpath in terms of these visual elements. This algorithm was experimentally evaluated by an eye tracking study on six web pages for two different kinds of tasks (12 cases in total). Our experimental results show that the STA algorithm generates a trending scanpath that addresses the reductionist problem of existing work by preventing the loss of commonly visited visual elements for all cases. Based on the statistical tests, the STA algorithm also generates a trending scanpath that is significantly more similar to the inputted scanpaths compared to other existing work in 10 out of 12 cases. In the remaining cases, the STA algorithm still performs significantly better than some other existing work. This algorithm contributes to behavior analysis research on the web that can be used for different purposes: for example, re-engineering web pages guided by the trending scanpath to improve users’ experience or guiding designers to improve their design.

References

  1. Andrew Abbott and Alexandra Hrycak. 1990. Measuring resemblance in sequence data: An optimal matching analysis of musicians’ careers. American Journal of Sociology 96, 1 (July 1990), 144--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Hamed Ahmadi and Jun Kong. 2012. User-centric adaptation of web information for small screens. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 23, 1 (Feb. 2012), 13--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Faisal Ahmed, Yevgen Borodin, Andrii Soviak, Muhammad Islam, I. V. Ramakrishnan, and Terri Hedgpeth. 2012. Accessible skimming: Faster screen reading of web pages. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, New York, 367--378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Elgin Akpınar and Yeliz Yeşilada. 2015. “Old habits die hard!”: Eyetracking based experiential transcoding: A study with mobile users. In Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference. ACM, New York, Article 12, 5 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Elgin Akpınar and Yeliz Yeşilada. 2013. Vision based page segmentation algorithm: Extended and perceived success. In Current Trends in Web Engineering (LNCS), Quan Z. Sheng and Jesper Kjeldskov (Eds.), Vol. 8295. Springer International Publishing, 238--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Maria Grazia Albanesi, Riccardo Gatti, Marco Porta, and Alice Ravarelli. 2011. Towards semi-automatic usability analysis through eye tracking. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies. ACM, New York, 135--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Aris Anagnostopoulos, Michail Vlachos, Marios Hadjieleftheriou, Eamonn Keogh, and Philip S. Yu. 2006. Global distance-based segmentation of trajectories. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, New York, 34--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jay Ayres, Jason Flannick, Johannes Gehrke, and Tomi Yiu. 2002. Sequential pattern mining using a bitmap representation. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’02). ACM, New York, 429--435. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Tanja Blascheck, Kuno Kurzhals, Michael Raschke, Michael Burch, Daniel Weiskopf, and Thomas Ertl. 2014. State-of-the-art of visualization for eye tracking data. In EuroVis - STARs, Rita Borgo, Ross Maciejewski, and Ivan Viola (Eds.). The Eurographics Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Andrew Brown, Caroline Jay, and Simon Harper. 2010. Using qualitative eye-tracking data to inform audio presentation of dynamic web content. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 16, 3 (2010), 281--301. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Michael Burmester and Marcus Mast. 2010. Repeated web page visits and the scanpath theory: A recurrent pattern detection approach. Journal of Eye Movement Research 3, 4 (2010), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Georg Buscher, Andreas Dengel, Ralf Biedert, and Ludger V. Elst. 2012. Attentive documents: Eye tracking as implicit feedback for information retrieval and beyond. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 1, 2, Article 9 (Jan. 2012), 30 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Chung-Han Chiang. 2009. A Genetic Algorithm for the Longest Common Subsequence of Multiple Sequences. Master’s thesis. National Sun Yat-sen University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hannah Faye Chua, Julie E. Boland, and Richard E. Nisbett. 2005. Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 35 (2005), 12629--12633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Tim Chuk, Antoni B. Chan, and Janet H. Hsiao. 2014. Understanding eye movements in face recognition using hidden Markov models. Journal of Vision 14, 11 (2014), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jacob Cohen. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Filipe Cristino, Sebastiaan Mathôt, Jan Theeuwes, and Iain D. Gilchrist. 2010. ScanMatch: A novel method for comparing fixation sequences. Behavior Research Methods 42, 3 (2010), 692--700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Andrew T. Duchowski, Jason Driver, Sheriff Jolaoso, William Tan, Beverly N. Ramey, and Ami Robbins. 2010. Scanpath comparison revisited. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 219--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Sukru Eraslan and Yeliz Yesilada. 2015. Patterns in eyetracking scanpaths and the affecting factors. Journal of Web Engineering - Special Issue on “Engineering the Web for Users, Developers and the Crowds” 14, 485 (2015), 363--385. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sukru Eraslan, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper. 2013. Understanding eye tracking data for re-engineering web pages. In Current Trends in Web Engineering, Quan Z. Sheng and Jesper Kjeldskov (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 8295. Springer International Publishing, 345--349. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sukru Eraslan, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper. 2014. Identifying patterns in eyetracking scanpaths in terms of visual elements of web pages. In Web Engineering, Sven Casteleyn, Gustavo Rossi, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 8541. Springer International Publishing, 163--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sukru Eraslan, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper. 2016a. Eye tracking scanpath analysis techniques on web pages: A survey, evaluation and comparison. Journal of Eye Movement Research 9, (1):2 (2016), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Sukru Eraslan, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper. 2016b. What is trending in eye tracking scanpaths on web pages? In Proceedings of the Measuring Behavior 2016, Andrew Spink, Gernot Riedel, Liting Zhou, Lisanne Teekens, Rami Albatal, and Cathal Gurrin (Eds.). Dublin City University, 341--343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kris Evans, Caren M. Rotello, Xingshan Li, and Keith Rayner. 2009. Scene perception and memory revealed by eye movements and receiver-operating characteristic analyses: Does a cultural difference truly exist? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62, 2 (February 2009), 276--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Brice Follet, Olivier Le Meur, and Thierry Baccino. 2011. New insights into ambient and focal visual fixations using an automatic classification algorithm. iPerception: Open-access Journal of Human, Animal, and Machine Perception 2, 6 (2011), 592--610.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Philippe Fournier-Viger, Antonio Gomariz, Ted Gueniche, Azadeh Soltani, Cheng-Wei Wu, and Vincent S. Tseng. 2014. SPMF: A java open-source pattern mining library. Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 (2014), 3389--3393. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Joseph H. Goldberg and Jonathan I. Helfman. 2010. Scanpath clustering and aggregation. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 227--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Prateek Hejmady and N. Hari Narayanan. 2012. Visual attention patterns during program debugging with an IDE. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 197--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Helene Hembrooke, Matt Feusner, and Geri Gay. 2006. Averaging scan patterns and what they can tell us. In Proceedings of the 2006 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 41--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. John Heminghous and Andrew T. Duchowski. 2006. iComp: A tool for scanpath visualization and comparison. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. ACM, New York, 152--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kenneth Holmqvist, Marcus Nyström, and Fiona Mulvey. 2012. Eye tracker data quality: What it is and how to measure it. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 45--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Jana Holsanova, Henrik Rahm, and Kenneth Holmqvist. 2006. Entry points and reading paths on newspaper spreads: Comparing a semiotic analysis with eye-tracking measurements. Visual Communication 5, 1 (February 2006), 65--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Anja Janoschka. 2004. Web Advertising: New Forms of Communication on the Internet. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Halszka Jarodzka, Kenneth Holmqvist, and Marcus Nyström. 2010. A vector-based, multidimensional scanpath similarity measure. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 211--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Caroline Jay and Andy Brown. 2008. User Review Document: Results of Initial Sighted and Visually Disabled User Investigations. Technical Report. University of Manchester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheree Josephson. 2010. Using eye tracking to see how viewers process visual information in cyberspace. In Visualizing the Web: Evaluating Online Design from a Visual Communication Perspective, Sheree Josephson, Susan B. Barnes, and Mark Lipton (Eds.). Vol. 1. Peter Lang Publishing, Chapter 5, 99--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheree Josephson and Michael E. Holmes. 2002. Visual attention to repeated internet images: Testing the scanpath theory on the world wide web. In Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Eye Tacking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 43--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ziho Kang and Steven J. Landry. 2015. An eye movement analysis algorithm for a multielement target tracking task: Maximum transition-based agglomerative hierarchical clustering. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 45, 1 (Feb 2015), 13--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Olivier Le Meur and Thierry Baccino. 2013. Methods for comparing scanpaths and saliency maps: Strengths and weaknesses. Behavior Research Methods 45, 1 (2013), 251--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Jae-Gil Lee, Jiawei Han, and Kyu-Young Whang. 2007. Trajectory clustering: A partition-and-group framework. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, New York, 593--604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Luis A. Leiva and Enrique Vidal. 2013. Warped k-means: An algorithm to cluster sequentially-distributed data. Information Sciences 237 (2013), 196--210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Magnus S. Magnusson. 2000. Discovering hidden time patterns in behavior: T-patterns and their detection. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32, 1 (2000), 93--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Gary Marchionini. 2006. Exploratory search: From finding to understanding. Communications of the ACM 49, 4 (April 2006), 41--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Marcus Mast and Michael Burmester. 2011. Exposing repetitive scanning in eye movement sequences with t-pattern detection. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction. 137--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Sebastiaan Mathôt, Filipe Cristino, Iain D. Gilchrist, and Jan Theeuwes. 2012. A simple way to estimate similarity between pairs of eye movement sequences. Journal of Eye Movement Research 5, 1 (2012), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Eleni Michailidou. 2010. ViCRAM: Visual Complexity Rankings and Accessibility Metrics. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Manchester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthew A. Napierala. 2012. What is the Bonferroni correction? AAOS Now - American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons April (2012), 1--3. Retrieved from http://www.aaos.org/AAOSNow/2012/Apr/research/research7/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch. 1970. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology 48, 3 (28 March 1970), 443--453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Julie Pallant. 2007. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS Version 15 (4th ed.). Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Andrey Tietbohl Palma, Vania Bogorny, Bart Kuijpers, and Luis Otavio Alvares. 2008. A clustering-based approach for discovering interesting places in trajectories. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, New York, 863--868. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Bing Pan, Helene A. Hembrooke, Geri K. Gay, Laura A. Granka, Matthew K. Feusner, and Jill K. Newman. 2004. The determinants of web page viewing behavior: An eye-tracking study. In Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 147--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Alex Poole and Linden J. Ball. 2005. Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Current status and future. In Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, C. Ghaoui (Ed.). Idea Group, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Claudio M. Privitera and Lawrence W. Stark. 2000. Algorithms for defining visual regions-of-interest: Comparison with eye fixations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22, 9 (Sept. 2000), 970--982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Kari-Jouko Räihä. 2010. Some applications of string algorithms in human-computer interaction. In Algorithms and Applications, Tapio Elomaa, Heikki Mannila, and Pekka Orponen (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6060. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 196--209. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Kari-Jouko Räihä, Anne Aula, Päivi Majaranta, Harri Rantala, and Kimmo Koivunen. 2005. Static visualization of temporal eye-tracking data. In Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2005, Maria Francesca Costabile and Fabio Patern (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3585. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 946--949. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Keith Rayner. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124 (1998), 372--422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Keith Rayner, Monica S. Castelhano, and Jinmian Yang. 2009. Eye movements when looking at unusual/weird scenes: Are there cultural differences? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35, 1 (2009), 254--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Marc Resnick and William Albert. 2014. The impact of advertising location and user task on the emergence of banner ad blindness: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30, 3 (2014), 206--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Anthony Santella and Doug DeCarlo. 2004. Robust clustering of eye movement recordings for quantification of visual interest. In Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 27--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Alistair Sutcliffe and Abdallah Namoun. 2012. Predicting user attention in complex web pages. Behaviour 8 Information Technology 31, 7 (July 2012), 679--695. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Haruhiko Takeuchi and Yoshiko Habuchi. 2007. A quantitative method for analyzing scan path data obtained by eye tracker. In IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining. 283--286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Tobii Technology AB. 2011a. Accuracy and Precision, Test Report, Tobii T60 Eye Tracker. Technical Report Methodology/Software version: 2.1.1. Tobii Technology AB.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Tobii Technology AB. 2011b. Tobii T60 8 T120 Eye Tracker User Manual. Technical Report Revision 4. Tobii Technology AB.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Geoffrey Underwood, Katherine Humphrey, and Tom Foulsham. 2008. Knowledge-based patterns of remembering: Eye movement scanpaths reflect domain experience. In HCI and Usability for Education and Work, Andreas Holzinger (Ed.). LNCS, Vol. 5298. Springer, Berlin. 125--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Boris M. Velichkovsky, Alexandra Rothert, Mathias Kopf, Sascha M. Dornhöfer, and Markus Joos. 2002. Towards an express-diagnostics for level of processing and hazard perception. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 5, 2 (2002), 145--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Julia M. West, Anne R. Haake, Evelyn P. Rozanski, and Keith S. Karn. 2006. eyePatterns: Software for identifying patterns and similarities across fixation sequences. In Proceedings of the 2006 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, 149--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Yeliz Yesilada, Simon Harper, and Sukru Eraslan. 2013. Experiential transcoding: An eyetracking approach. In Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility. ACM, 30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Yeliz Yesilada, Caroline Jay, Robert Stevens, and Simon Harper. 2008. Validating the use and role of visual elements of web pages in navigation with an eye-tracking study. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’08). ACM, New York, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Shipeng Yu, Deng Cai, Ji-Rong Wen, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2003. Improving pseudo-relevance feedback in web information retrieval using web page segmentation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’03). ACM, New York, 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Scanpath Trend Analysis on Web Pages: Clustering Eye Tracking Scanpaths

            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 the Web
              ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 10, Issue 4
              December 2016
              169 pages
              ISSN:1559-1131
              EISSN:1559-114X
              DOI:10.1145/3017848
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2016 ACM

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 15 November 2016
              • Revised: 1 July 2016
              • Accepted: 1 July 2016
              • Received: 1 April 2015
              Published in tweb Volume 10, Issue 4

              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
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!