Play with your eyes

by Ross Miller { Aug 3rd 2006 at 10:28PM }

Ever wanted to play Diablo II without using a mouse? What if you could control a game entirely with your eye movements? Researchers at the Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada have discovered that gamers using an eye tracker to play felt more immersed than using a mouse. However, that was one of the only benefits of gaming with your eyes.

Three games were chosen for the experiment. The subjects played each with both a mouse and then again with eye tracking software.

Orientation in a FPS was tested using Jake 2, a Java port of Quake 2. Players had to work their way down a hall and through a door, taking down five enemies with a pistol and unlimited ammo. One problem with using the eyes, researchers found, was The average completion time was 40 seconds for eye trackers, but only 30 seconds when a mouse was used. Survey data suggests the subject's overwhelmingly felt the mouse was easier to use and preferred its use in the future.

Targeting moving objects gave subjects using eye tracking software the most trouble. Playing a variant of Missile Command, those using a mouse earned a score 130% better than the "eye trackers." Subjects found the mouse easier to use (92%) but were split on enjoyability and future preferences (58% each).

Communicating with an avatar, surprisingly works better with eye tracking software than a mouse. Playing Neverwinter Nights, subjects opened two chests and walked through the door. Although those using a mouse completed the level faster, those who controlled the character with eye movement enjoyed it more (83%) and two-thirds of the subject prefer eye tracking over mouse usage.

We really enjoy the attempt at innovating control schemes and enhancing emotions. One idea we enjoyed, discussed early in the research, is cascaded (MAGIC) pointing, which is a hybrid of eye movement and mouse usage -- the subject looks at a screen and the mouse follows along, so that you only have to make minute adjustments with the mouse to get the desire spot. We love thinking of its application to the RTS genre.

Read (.pdf file)

[via Slashdot]

Tags: technology

Related From Joystiq

Australian Classification Board vs. Aliens vs. Predator
4 days ago
Eye of Judgment: Legends for PSP rated by ESRB
7 days ago
Xbox 360 port of 3D Dot Game Heroes 'possible'
29 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

ill trooper @ Aug 3rd 2006 10:59PM

I'm a skeptic on this - Peripheral detection of video game goals or enemies is often handled by an indirect quick glance, and tracking every single eye-move seems like it would cause glitchy control. I was a little concerned about this sort of thing with the Wii controller too - I mean, if I'm slouching on the couch playing XBox, even if I'l leaning to the left I can still press the d-pad or hold the analog controller to the right, and the box is only going to get a 'go right' signal... On the Wii, you sort of need to sit up straight and watch how you hold your hands.

I'm sure we can all think of a time when we're looking at something else while shooting and flying elsewhere, 'cruise control' so to speak, whether it's shooting one way in Geometry Wars while looking ahead to see if it's gonna be safe, or talking to your girlfriend while looking at what's walking past. Huh? Who said that?

rhork. @ Aug 3rd 2006 11:13PM

I think people are losing sight of what 'totally immersive' is.

They should strive for advanced motion tracking. I want to feel and act like I'm shooting a zombie, feel and act like I'm playing tennis, etc, etc. I don't want to sit there and stare as my neck grows tired of holding my head in place.

This stuff is interesting and perhaps an incredibly applicable technology to today's world (i'm sure the airforce,etc would love this upon perfection), but I want none of it in gaming.

Rare Hare @ Aug 3rd 2006 11:17PM

Hmmm... in theory, this sounds great. But I have to agree with ill troopers concerns on the matter.

Would it mean we'd have to concentrate more on our natural actions, reactions, etc., just so the eye controls wouldn't get confused or overreact?

idioteraser @ Aug 3rd 2006 11:29PM

I am worried about any occular damage that would occur using this. Eye strain galore.

cringer8 @ Aug 4th 2006 1:09AM

I'd like a game I can control by clenching my buttocks.

Maybe some nostril flaring as well.

VerticalEvent @ Aug 4th 2006 5:09AM

I think the expirement has a fatal flaw in it; most of their tests subjects would have more expirence using a mouse to control their computers over an eye tracking device, which makes using a mouse a much simpler task then using your eyes to control an avatar.

With that said, it's interesting with Avatar interaction, being more fun to use. If these expirements were done in order, then the subjects were probably getting used to the idea of using their eyes to move.

This could have a great impact on immersion; imangine, just think of something, and your practiclly doing it. Wanna head to that cliff? Just focus your eyes on it and your character is already starting to move out. It's practiclly think and go.

It would be interesting to see what happens when people get more expierence using the eye tracking hardware. Hopefully they'll keep working with the same group of people, to see what changes occur in regards to performance.

Jdoki @ Aug 4th 2006 5:54AM

Wow, and to think someone got paid a research grant to work out that controlling stuff with your eyes is not as intuitive as using your hands.

Thanks for that, I'll bear it in mind next time I try and drive my car using my eyeballs...

Christopher7xii @ Aug 4th 2006 7:27AM

"I am worried about any occular damage that would occur using this. Eye strain galore."

Uhh, why? It's the same thing as looking at the screen when you play with a controller... You look at a screen, only your input device senses your eye movement/focus as opposed to using a controller.

So, why would this cause eye strain?

Sir Barry @ Aug 4th 2006 7:41AM

Oh, NO I blinked and Blinky got me again just as I was about to get a Power Pellet! It is interesting but I think the eyeware should be left to stuff like eye scans and James Bond not games. At least yet.

Marty @ Aug 4th 2006 7:52AM

"Uhh, why? It's the same thing as looking at the screen when you play with a controller... You look at a screen, only your input device senses your eye movement/focus as opposed to using a controller.

So, why would this cause eye strain?"

Because, it takes away the ability to look away for breif seconds, because it would mess up your game. You are more inclined to just sit there and stare so nothing bad in the game happens. The people who get eye strains in videogames are the ones who sit there and stare intently. Without the ability to just look at something else at a different depth in your room or move your eyes to give them a break, strain will increase.

Now for my second point of this post.

DAMN LAZY EYE!!! PAC-Man keeps drifting down to the lower right corner!!!

farfar @ Aug 4th 2006 8:36AM

@7: alright, and next time you want to walk down the street, sit down, bring your keyboard and push the up arrow. let us know how far you get. the eye tracking lends itself to fps because it trys to mimic the action itself. looking around.

kudos to everyone who bashed a technology still in reserach because it isn't perfected yet.

side note, not so ranty: was this tested on hard-core gamers or noobs? i wonder how the times for the different inputs would've measured up...

Chidade @ Aug 4th 2006 8:47AM

I like the fact that someone's thinking about it because it could help disabled people play. Disabled people are gamers, too! But I guess what would be ideal is a combination of input devices. Gaming shouldn't just involve pressing buttons anymore.

32_Footsteps @ Aug 4th 2006 9:47AM

It sounds like a great idea until someone calls your name from the other room and you look over to answer them. Or the phone calls and you instinctually look over.

I mean, this sounds like a great idea for gaming while in a sensory deprivation tank, with only the game providing input. But in the real world, I think it'd be a bit too easy to screw with someone using this.

farfar @ Aug 4th 2006 10:25AM

but wouldn't it be more immersive to deal with the consequences of looking away from the 'screen'? if someone's staring me down on-screen with a gun and i turn my head to talk to a buddy - my too bad.

Moogle @ Aug 4th 2006 11:28AM

Pfft. For one, good control in a game comes from building it around the input device. FPSs made for the xbox controller feel funny on PC, mouse games don't work on consoles, and none of these games were designed to take account of this new eye tracker.

For example, in missle command, you're firing at a point that is not the item of visual interest, so it's gonna be flakey. If you're taking in a whole scene at once, your eyes are going wander and convey no useful information (I recall something about eyes tending to trace the outlines of objects of interest...). If you're concentrating on a point, you might have trouble deciding on a point without glancing at other information. To make a game work, you have to design for all this. It is probably more useful as additional information, not a replacement for mouse. An example would be pointing your flashlight in Doom3, while you use your mouse to move and shoot (Friggen one armed no duct tape space marines).

I'm curious how much the system can tell about head orientation. The input device of the future might be a pair of glasses that have shutter-LCDs for 3d, wiimote pointer ability for head tracking, and multiple small cameras per eye for precise eye tracking. Hmm... I should go patent that. Comes with a free neck brace to help you hold up all that technology!