Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Input Devices Technology

Gaze Gaming Tech Promises Faster Eye-Controlled Interaction 141

NewScientist is reporting that further research is progressing on new types of user input devices. Specifically, "gaze gaming," a technology that promises faster interaction using only your eyes. Currently technology for sight-based interaction is far too slow for practical applications in things like gaming. "Eye-gaze systems bounce infrared light from LEDs at the bottom of a computer monitor and track a person's eye movements using stereo infrared cameras. This setup can calculate where on a screen the user is looking with an accuracy of about 5 mm."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaze Gaming Tech Promises Faster Eye-Controlled Interaction

Comments Filter:
  • by Smeagel ( 682550 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:30PM (#23303952)
    While your finger sits on a touch sensor (unmoving, relaxing) your eyes act as the mouse curser. You blink to click. Perfect interaction.
    • by speroni ( 1258316 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:40PM (#23304032) Homepage
      Blinking could be an issue, you're going to do that involuntarily. Maybe with an extra long blink, or specifically one eye for a click (Then you could get left and right clicks) you don't generally close one eye involuntarily.

      I was thinking a contact lens with an inlaid tracker could improve the accuracy.

      I already have suspicions that sitting in my cubical in front of my good old CRTs and other equipment is already unhealthy enough, wouldn't want to add more EMR in my face on top of that. Although I know there's nothing inherently unhealthy with IR EMR...
      • by Dwedit ( 232252 )
        If you don't want electromagnetic radiation, turn off the lights.
        • Manager doesn't take kindly to me turning off the lights...

          Tried polarized sunglasses but I had to tilt my head 45 deg to be able to see the screen, by then I think I had negated my efforts with a sore neck to boot.

          At least I don't have to worry about sunlight in my engineering pit of despair.

          I can only hope that all the antioxidants in the beer catch all the free radicals...
        • If you don't want electromagnetic radiation, turn off the lights.

          I'd love to, but I am afraid to ask the other cubicle dwellers in my zone for fear of looking like a nutjob.

          Here is an entry [wikipedia.org] on some health effects from office lighting.

          Health effects of over-illumination or improper spectral composition of light include increased headache incidence, worker fatigue, medically defined stress, decrease in sexual function and increase in anxiety.

      • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @04:49PM (#23304748)

        or specifically one eye for a click (Then you could get left and right clicks)
        I can see it now: all the Apple fanboys poking out one of their eyes to make themselves "compatible".

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mikael ( 484 )
        A google search for "eye tracking hardware" will give a good range of companies.

        There are actually LCD monitors which actually have built in eye tracking hardware. [tobii.com]
    • by Itninja ( 937614 )
      Yeah, except that blinking is autonomic. You would have to conscientiously refrain from blinking to avoid clicking.
    • Can you blink faster than you can click a mouse button?

      I'm not sure I can right now, but then I haven't exactly been practicing using my blinking techniques as much as I have been using my hands.
      If this technology really is more than some vapourware, I can see it finally making console FPS's rival PC FPS's. I mean, the biggest reason why the mouse is better for controlling those games is precision and speed, but if you could simply look at your enemy to target them, you'd be just as fast. Then all you need
      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You'd look at your enemy, but that's not precise enough for careful aim. If I want to make a headshot from a long range, I need point and click accuracy. Not to mention if you get distracted right before you fire (say, by one of the many explosions on screen) and your eyes jump, you'd certainly miss.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      Now they just need to get it down to .5mm resolution...

      In other words, it needs at least a 10x improvement to be a mouse replacement with current UIs.
      • by Smeagel ( 682550 )
        I don't know +-2mm seems more than sufficient for almost everything. There are a few things which it might not work perfectly for, but keep in mind even if it was a little off you'd still see a mouse cursor and be able to adjust its error. So I'd say a 5x improvement might be all that's necessary ;)
        • Unless you are thinking along the lines of a gaming device. Sniping with a 2mm inaccuracy would not be optimal.

          Fragging needs accuracy, and 2mm can mean the difference between 1337 and n008...
      • that was my first thought too. 5mm is huge.

        just for fun on my 800x600 screen the default windows taskbar buttons are 6mm high. The slashdot submit button is 5x16mm It might be accurate enough, though down to a 1 or 2 mm range would be necessary to start out with.
      • by pherthyl ( 445706 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @04:29PM (#23304532)
        Well I work on these kinds of systems, and that 5mm is not a limitation of the system, it's a limitation of the eyes.

        The fovea (dense area of rods and cones) in the retina is large enough to give you approximately a 1 deg cone of "focus". Which means depending on the distance, you can focus on an area of a given size on the screen. So even with a perfect eye tracker, you cannot pinpoint gaze location exactly just by measuring eye orientation. Accuracy depends on distance from the screen, but 5mm is in the ballpark for what you can achieve (and that is with a perfectly calibrated system, real accuracy will be worse).
        • So even with a perfect eye tracker, you cannot pinpoint gaze location exactly just by measuring eye orientation.

          And even if you could, your brain is also capable of "steering" the region of view which is currently being focused on (in a mental sense). This occurs without moving your eyes. Your sharpest vision is dead center in your field of vision, but it is easy to "pay attention" to things which are not at that location -- think peripheral vision.

          For some people (me included), this mental activity m

        • by fractoid ( 1076465 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @12:21AM (#23308386) Homepage
          I can't help thinking that using gaze tracking as a primary cursor is (with the exception of physically disabled users who *can't* use a traditional pointing device) somewhat missing the main potential.

          Gaze tracking seems to me to be perfect for a secondary 'information' cursor. Wonder what the date is? Look at the clock on your taskbar and the calendar will pop up. Curious what guild that undead priest over there is in? Simply looking will give you some transparent overlay text detailing guild, current health/mana, and what spell he's casting. Cast your eyes to a person's name on your IM list and it'll tell you when they were last at their computer and what their status message is.

          Another interesting thing I remember reading about was using eye tracking for security. The whole screen is a ramble of random characters, except the precise area of interest being focussed on, which is unscrambled. The viewer's brain assembles what they see into an unscrambled screen, and any onlooker just sees junk.
        • by kcelery ( 410487 )
          I wonder if you could come up with some device to prolong the battery life of a laptop. One of the main current sink besides the CPU is the backlit device of the LCD. For simplicity, let's say, dividing the LCD foot print in 3 x 3 grid. When our eye ball focus on the top left area, only the white LED behind the top left corner of the LCD is lit up. So the power consumption is cut to 1/9 of the original. When our eye ball row to the other corner, that corner will be lit up. Then of course, when we are pon
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dreamchaser ( 49529 )
      Human's eyes dart around way too much for that to really be workable IMO. As an adjunct to a mouse for fast targeting it might have gaming and military applications though.
      • by StarfishOne ( 756076 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @04:12PM (#23304362)

        Darting eyes indeed!

        Why oh why do I have to think about a situation I was in a few years ago.

        I was taking driving lessons together with a friend of me. I was sitting in the backseat when the driving instructor was explaining how it was very important to look ahead, but also that _you will tend to go wherever you are looking_.

        And as if to emphasize the importance of this, our sometimes playful Universe introduced a few seconds later this synchronicity in the form of one of the most stunning blonde girls we have ever seen.. (oh those legs!)... my friend almost hit the sidewalk and I can still hear our driving instructor saying: "SEE!? That's what I mean! Keep your eyes on the road"

        It was such a brilliant moment. :D

        • Not to mention that the idea in the post I replied to that blinking the eyes would click the mouse would be rather unworkable as well, since we can't always control when we blink. If you need to use some 'hand on a button' to enable 'blink to click' then it defeats the purpose and you might as well just use the button to click.
      • I think that's part of the sophistication of the eyeball tracking system, to "average" out the general movements of a typical set of eyeballs & give you a relatively steady target.

        It doesn't seem all that different than a trackpad or an optical mouse; those jitter quite a bit too if your sensitivity is cranked up too high, or move like molasses if your sensitivity is way too low.

        In addition, given the way the brain adapts new physical activities, once you get used to using the eye tracking system to con
    • People have posted a few good arguments against using your eyes as the mouse cursor. The biggest one for me is that I don't always want to be looking at the thing I am clicking.

      Just as I don't want to look at the keyboard while I'm typing, or sometimes even at the screen (say, looking at some notes on my desk) I don't always want the mouse cursor where I'm looking.
    • Until you blink naturally, accidentally clicking the "North" button, and you are promptly eaten by a Grue.

      And yes, I know you didn't *click* a north button, but that isn't the point here :)
  • Retinal image (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FrankSchwab ( 675585 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:32PM (#23303964) Journal
    I always wondered if you could do more precise gaze detection by looking at a person's retina. Could you detect where they were looking on the screen precisely enough to eliminate the need for a mouse cursor (say, within one character space)? How large is the area of sharpest vision? /frank
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MuValas ( 91840 )
      The problem is what a person is cognitively focused on isn't necessarily what they are visually focused on. We've worked on vision-tracking systems for a long time, and this basic fact stymies most uses of the technology. We have had numerous devices that bounce various types of light off the retina for tracking, and people that use it complain that sometimes what they are focused on, and what their retina is apparently focused on, is different.
    • Depends on the size and resolution of your screen, how far you sit from it, and how good your vision is.

      Don't want Google tracking your web usage and viewing habits? Cross your eyes and view the internet through our MagicEye Filter Proxy!

      Note: Be sure to configure your popup blockers to allow popups from this site, otherwise you'll be angrily staring at a big blurry mess for hours.
  • by amplt1337 ( 707922 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:32PM (#23303966) Journal
    at least for FPS.

    Otherwise, mostly a Gee Whiz! tech, though I suppose it could have useful applications for the disabled. But I wonder if we won't see wrist-based Repetitive Motion problems transferred to increased eyestrain...
    • I dont think so. You are moving your eyes pretty much every second of every day. Further, you are probably already making these eye movements when you play an FPS, only now those eye movements are followed by hand movements. Currently, it goes something like this:
      1 Bad guy pops onto screen.
      2 You look at bad guy.
      3 You move mouse.
      4 Weapon points at bad guy.
      5 You frag bad guy.
      This technology is replacing step 3 with "Computer notices eye movement and calculates what you are looking at". Pretty cool
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jollyreaper ( 513215 )
      No. With blink controls, the great equalizer will be mace.
      • In my experience, the great equalizer is A mace...

        I have found this to be the best way to counter the advantage the fast-twitch savants have in FPS/RTS.
    • Oh no! (Score:2, Insightful)

      Forget "the great equalizer". With my lazy eye I'll be staring up at the heavens spinning in circles all game long ... that is all game until my head gets blown off repeatedly.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by speroni ( 1258316 )
        I imagine you would have to build in a calibration feature. Everyone's facial structure and eye placement and such are all slightly different. When you install the hardware, you'd get click this X over here, and that X over there, adjust your sensitivity etc... and if done properly it could compensate for quite a bit of variation.
    • for virtualty (as opposed to virtual reality which requires you to build in everything.)

      By making these things into eyeglass frames and using geo-positioning you can interpose a reactive layer between you and whatever you're looking at.

      This means great possibilities for 'non-intrusive' gesture (or bluetooth device triggered click,) capture and subsequent playback for whatever you're interested in that you're looking at.

      What I could do with something like that...
    • at least for FPS.

      Why not use a combination for more realism? FPS's lack eye focus because there is no way the FPS game can tell if you are looking at an object in the background and foreground and then blurr or focus depending on what you are looking at.

      In real life this is how we look at things but in games they have to fake it by focusing at the tip of you gun in the newer games but sometimes the player doesn't always look there.
  • by Simon (S2) ( 600188 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:34PM (#23303978) Homepage
    It would be really useful to be able to move the cursor only by looking at the point on the sceen I want it to be. That could save my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and it could also incement my productivity by making the pointer go quicker to where I want it to be. I hope it will have pixel accuracy, but even if it does not, I am sure, time a few years, it could become the perfect input device.
    • by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      Sitting up straight and doing some core exercises prevent repetitive strain injuries to your wrists too. Best part? They're free and you don't need to wait for the technology to be developed.
    • Yeah, but reading would be a bitch. "Get that damn cursor out of my way!"

      I'd rather have no cursor at all until I somehow signal that I want to interact with the screen at the current point of my gaze.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PatboyX ( 968493 )
      Maybe the problem is that we are thinking of using this new tech for existing and somewhat limited metaphors for a workspace. If we start with this as an input method, maybe we would create a workstation that would address the above issues such as wanting to be able to interact with something I am not focusing on, accidental blinks, etc. So...yeah, start working on that.
      • by Jay L ( 74152 ) *
        Maybe the problem is that we are thinking of using this new tech for existing and somewhat limited metaphors for a workspace

        Bingo. I can think of at least one perfect application for gaze-tracking: Growl notifications. The perfect fade time for a growl notification isn't three seconds, five, or 30; it's "right after I stop looking at it".

        Google Reader kinda does this via scrolling; if you scroll past it, you've decided not to read it. That's a brilliant UI metaphor for attention.
    • "I am sure, time a few years, it could become the perfect input device"

      That's amazing and impressive. I've been in the IT and technology field for a long long time, long enough to know that I can never be 'sure' what will be coming in a few years or what current nascent technologies will be perefected and which will be busts.
    • by nfk ( 570056 )
      Then you can have left blink, right blink, double blink... Better not use it in a public computer near that girl who likes you. I bet if there were any cyclops left they would all be using Macs.
    • This doesn't work as well as you might think. When there is a cursor skittering over a background based on your gaze it attracts your attention - so if there is any latency at all between your center of vision and the mouse pointer you are screwed. To completely avoid that kind of latency you would need hundreds of fps to cover the natural saccades in gaze.

      Ironically (given the claims in the article) I know this from playing an eye-tracker based game this year. The students who wrote it decided the hardware
  • blink enough when I play games. This could only make things worse
  • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:43PM (#23304064) Homepage Journal
    This means Nintendo's next generation of console will be called the sii?
  • by Aranykai ( 1053846 ) <slgonser@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:52PM (#23304156)
    There is going to have to be a very accurate system of "disabling tracking". I mean, take the FPS example. How often am I going to be spinning around when I glance down for a quick ammo count?

    Or, if you look up to check your HP/MP in an MMO, will you be randomly changing targets, or worse, disengaging them to move?

    Its an interesting idea, definitely useful for somethings, but it shouldn't ever take the place of a mechanical pointing device like a mouse or trackball.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Several games already allow you to move your cursor without moving the direction the player is facing, for example to give orders. It's as simple as disabling eye input while holding ALT or some other key.

      This combined with perhaps a keyboard which features mouse buttons could be quite nice to work with.
    • This actually emphasizes two points:
      1) instead of replacing the mouse, this could be another separate input device.
      2) You could use it for glance movements in FPS, or in other ways in other scenarios -- such as applying the OS X bubble dock effect to your screen; wherever you look on-screen is magnified. You could even add in a time element and have focus-follows-focus, with magnification kicking in if you rested your eyes in one place for longer than 2 seconds (unlikely unless you actually want to trigger
    • Why?

      If you glance down to check your ammo in real life, your focus changes just as if would in-game. Perhaps instead of looking down at a "virtual status bar," maybe now you'll actually be looking at the clips in the gun.

      I think that could add yet another bit of interesting realism to the game.
  • I don't think of eye tracking as an ideal form of input, especially not for FPS games.
    What would you even use it for? Moving? Aiming? It'd be a poor choice either way, and you'd still need other input for all the other stuff you need to do.

    It would be surprising if it ends up having any practical applications at all.
    • (Sorry, I decided to post it from an account since nobody seems to be familiar with the technology) No, you are dumb. It is yesterday's news, anyway. It is already being used for people with disabilities who can't operate mouse or keyboard. Check out Eyeresponse.com
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Imagine this:
      When you focus on something, more info about it slowly appears.

      Either it becomes more detailed then the suroundings, or details like health, stamina, or whatever.

      It could be quite impressive.
    • by asylumx ( 881307 )
      I tend to agree. Particularly in video games, it is often desirable and even necessary to be able to look one way while aiming another. If the cursor moves whenever you move your eyes, you could be in all kinds of trouble.

      It turns out the mouse is actually very good at its job. Why do people keep trying to replace it?
    • Combine this with electronic paper, and a place where people are close and captive (Shopping lines, Elevators, Escalators, Urinals...), and you've got advertising that can determine how effective it is on its own. "Viewer eye focus is up 30%!" (works best when the electronic paper _doesn't_ interact with the user)
  • What about four eyes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by icebike ( 68054 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:53PM (#23304168)
    Some of us need glasses just to see up to the screen. How will this work with an additional semi-reflective layer interspersed?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pherthyl ( 445706 )
      It will definitely interfere. Depending on the glasses (reflectivity and material of the frames), the environment (ambient light, glare), and the system, you will get different results. I have some experience with a $40000 eye tracker from Tobii (they're pretty much top of the line trackers) and it still has issues with glasses.
  • Selective Rendering (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jannone ( 1145713 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @03:54PM (#23304182)
    For single-player games, this device could possibly enable some sort of selective rendering technique, where the objects sitting at the focal point are rendered in much more detail than the periphery.
    • by pherthyl ( 445706 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @04:36PM (#23304600)
      Yes, this has been done and works quite well (the user doesn't notice any difference). The problem is in the reaction time that is necessary. The last study I read found that the high detail rendering must be performed within 5ms of a fixation to make the experience seamless to the user. That's a problem for most applications, as they won't be able to react that quickly.
      • The last study I read found that the high detail rendering must be performed within 5ms of a fixation to make the experience seamless to the user.

        On the other hand, maybe the speed gain of only rendering a small part of the screen at ultra-high resolution *will* enable the applications to run at 200fps. (...as long as the screen refresh rate can keep up. Of course LCD is out of question at those frequencies).
        I don't have exact number handy but perhaps a crude 320x240 (antialiased) resolution might be enough for peripheral vision and the 1600x1200-equivalent-DPI-wise could be kept only for the region the eyes are currently looking at.

        • Perhaps yes. I think the other problem is that rendering engines are generally not optimized to render a given spatial area at a high resolution, while other areas are rendered at low res. I think rendering quality is usually specified on a per-object basis. So 3d engines would have to be substantially reorganized to take advantage of that kind of thing..
          • So 3d engines would have to be substantially reorganized to take advantage of that kind of thing..

            If you think at the *game engine* level.
            I was thinking at the OPENGL/drivers level.

            - There exists OpenGL implementations which could get OpenGL command and redistribue it accross several servers on the network, each rendering a part of the diplay.
            - Poorman's Anti-aliasing on the early GeForce / TNT was done by intercepting OpenGL/DX commands and rendering it at a different resolution in a buffer and then subsequently smoothly downsizing the buffer to the screen.
            - Current nVidia drivers produce stereo for g

  • Obligatory (Score:2, Redundant)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 )
    In Soviet Russia, TV watches you!
  • FTA:

    Technology is being developed to allow people with severe motor disabilities to play 3D computer games like World of Warcraft using only their eyes.
    So WoW players whose bodies atrophy from lack of getting up doing things in the real world would through this system be able to continue playing?
  • While I can see (no pun intended) good possibilities for games, it may cause a few problems if it were implemented in a desktop environment (as a few here are suggesting). I know at the moment, with the firefox tab-mix plus "hover the mouse over the tab to select it" feature that while it is useful, it can also be annoying if I don't park the mouse properly, as I can suddenly switch tab when doing something else. I could envisage the same problems with this. Unless it was easily deactivated a stray glanc
    • Yep, the effect you are describing is called the "midas touch problem" (for obvious reasons) and is the major problem with any eye tracking interface. The other major problem is that eyes are not meant to be used to select things (especially small things), and doing so will result in extreme fatigue very quickly.
  • Now we can farther yet remove gaming from pesky physical activity. It's no longer even a matter of good hand/eye coordination: just good eye coordination.
  • Shifty eyes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @04:07PM (#23304314) Homepage Journal
    This seems like a good idea in theory, but in reality we rarely keep our eyes fixed on any point with all that much precision. Our eyes are always shifting around to get a bigger picture of things most of the time, even when we're trying to hold a steady gaze on something. Trying to precisely control a game, or anything else, with one's eyes seems to me like much more trouble than it's worth.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not a problem as long as it's done on request only.

      For example, I'm proofreading a document, find an error, hit a key to position the cursor right where I'm looking at (Might be a problem for hunter/peckers)

      Playing a game, I see a new target, right click to move the mouse to that position or to lock on him right away.

      Blinking could be using for the click, but that might be problematic. Personally I can wiggle my ears, which would be a had way to interface for that click.

      It's a little harder to do on an FPS
    • Re:Shifty eyes (Score:4, Informative)

      by pz ( 113803 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:00PM (#23305954) Journal
      Have you tried? Sounds like maybe you have not.

      I have. I'm a visual neuroscientist and my research involves accurate measurement of eye position. I also own a relatively high-end SLR camera that senses eye position to control focus (this is not a coincidence). Humans have exquisite control over their eyes. With a good low-latency mechanism to read gaze position, system control (camera, computer, whatever) becomes incredibly quick, efficient, and fluid. The only problem is that you do NOT want the cursor to always track your eye position, you need a switch: sometimes you want the cursor where you are looking, sometimes you want to leave the cursor in place and look around. But this switch is no more than the equivalent of a mouse button, a shift key on a keyboard, or a foot switch. All work, although I prefer the keyboard approach.
  • ...will happily run out to Gamestop and purchase the latest version of "Bugs, Fishes, and Shiny Things" for our feline overlords of 2015.

    Other than that, and possibly use for the handicapped, I don't see a use for this tech in games/applications. It'll be as reliable and annoying as voice recognition software.

    Simple head tracking would be more useful. Tracking eyeballs fixed on a 2D plane will surely have horrible calibration issues, problems with multiple people looking at the same screen, problems with
    • But if you can live with plain head tracking you can use either the commercial TrackIR (http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/) or the open source (but win32 only) FreeTrack (http://www.free-track.net/english/). You probably are more interested in something implemented in a head mounted display, but don't see why the same approach can't be used with an HMD, keeping the setup simpler overall. Or perhaps in conjunction with shutter glasses, to get a "window on the 3D world" effect
  • Look at area,
    say "click"
    say "nudge [right|left|up|down|north|northwest|west|..." , then say "click|pow|go|do it".

    • Great for shared offices, or public transit, or checking your email in the morning without waking up the roommate.
  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @04:22PM (#23304460)
    I remember the pepsi commercials back in the late 70's/early 80's.
    They tracked where guys were looking and it was not at the product.
    In fact, they frequently didn't remember the product.
    Very popular commercial of a girl exiting the water in a little suit holding a can of pepsi.

  • Why replace the (mouse | right stick) in an FPS? Add this as another input.

    Keep the left stick or WASD keys controlling footwork, and the right stick or mouse controlling the point of view, but add this to allow interacting with some place other than the center of the screen.

    The only problem I see is that, the way it works right now, you can spot a target and move the mouse so the target is at the center of the screen. Once you've got it there you can shoot at it while looking around the periphery of the sc
  • *Excessive cursor movement detected. Add selected*

    Sore eyes from too much Gaze Gaming cursor control? Buy Visine!
  • by Tominva1045 ( 587712 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @04:36PM (#23304592)
    Dude, this is exactly how they almost took over the Enterprise that one time when Wesely came home from the Academy on vacation. I wouldn't trust it.
  • Great. Now my beautiful better half doesn't need to try to get me to acknowledge her repeated pleadings for my attention while I game on. Now all she needs to do is put on that top I really like and stand at the edge of my peripheral vision.

    Maybe if I rig a set of blinders...
  • Quickly summarizing a few comments I found interesting from the threads (instead of quoting them all);

    - potential for gaming/military, maybe training sims, bad for desktops
    - third input, as in mouse/gamepad assistance
    - handicapped assistance
    - head tracking benefits
    - potential issues with glasses/contacts
    - 'aiming' accuracy based on size/distance of screen

    And then an additional comment:

    So what if the thing was added to a helmet, with HUD. The fixed (configurable) distance between eye and sensor should increa
  • Be careful about reading this headline aloud. People nearby may get entirely the wrong idea of what sort of sites you visit.
  • by Brandano ( 1192819 ) on Monday May 05, 2008 @05:30PM (#23305176)
    Imagine using this feature to render highly detailed 3D images only where the user is actually looking. The peripheral vision is almost useless, the actual area that does most of the seeing is in the center of the retina. The brain fills in the blanks and keeps a mental image of what you are seeing that gets updated through rpid eye movement. With a smart setup this could be translated in a huge screen that appears to have a large resolution in every direction while keeping the processing power requirements still accessible. The mouse is a great interface, I don't see any reason to replace that just yet.
  • Will it work for Marty Feldman? http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3708590080/nm0001204 [imdb.com]
  • John Carmack spoke about this at QuakeCon 2007, not from a controlling in games perspective but rather from an optimization point of view. The eye really only focuses on one point at once; everything else in the field of vision is blurry. His idea was to only make what the eye was looking at on-screen high-detail, thus allowing much more detail in scenes.
  • It's probably not that great on its own for able bodied people, but as one of many inputs it could be quite interesting. It could be used to subtly alter camera views towards what you find interesting, I suppose. This sort of stuff is already in use to generate "heat maps" of where people are looking when using a computer. Like where on a webpage you look [youtube.com], or in game, etc. It'd be useful to know what sort of things people don't care about, or how distracting something fading in / out might be to the task at
  • by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2008 @05:30AM (#23309806)
    ... but soon, they can frag.

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas