Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Long Range Eye Tracking for Advertisers

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the The-unseen-mechanized-eye dept.

The Almighty Buck 134

holy_calamity writes "A Canadian firm has launched a device that can track the gaze of multiple people from up to 10 metres away. Originally developed at Queen's University, Ontario, they hope to sell it to advertisers to allow them to monitor how many people look at their ads. Admittedly they are trying more benign stuff too like better hearing aids, but I doubt that will make up for movie posters that make a song and dance whenever you glance their way."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (2, Funny)

Nursie (632944) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060773)

They will be able to tell where I'm looking. Advertisers, Law Enforcement, that hot chick on the underground...

Damn

Re:So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (2, Funny)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060869)

A pair of dark glasses and a 70's style trenchcoat will fix that. The hot chick will never suspect a thing.

Re:So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (1)

deathy_epl+ccs (896747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060963)

Advertisers and Law enforcement, on the other hand... well, with them, you're just screwed.

Re:So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (2, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060995)

"A pair of dark glasses"

s/dark/mirrored/;

... and uv/ir blocking ...

Or just walk around with a few laser pointers strapped to your head, lik a shark, and randomly zap the cameras as you stroll along. Just don't look at any airplains or helicopters, or you'll be arrested as a "terr'rist."

(yes, I tested blinding a security camera with a laser pointer. You can easily do it from 10 meters if you can rest your hand on something, like a desk or counter, and "walk" the beam to the camera. It was fun watching the resulting image "bloom").

Scooby Dooby Do was right (0)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061147)

OMG. Those creepy eyes in the portrait ARE following me!

Re:So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (2, Funny)

not-enough-info (526586) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061231)

Hello Mr. Yukkamoto and welcome back to the GAP!

Re:So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (1)

shark swooner (1077115) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062111)

In a world where advertisers/government can track and uniquely identify everyones retinas at range, and people get total eyeball replacement surgery to circumvent such, but the technology to produce mirrored sunglasses has been lost to history...

How about... (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061409)

... Viagra ads that loudly mock guys who glance nervously at them. And maybe add a little image recognition. Then your billboard can shout out, "Hey everybody, that bald guy in the suit over there can't get it up. Hahaha!" Nothing like a little peer pressure to get somebody to buy your product :-)

Re:So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19062275)

It's only a matter of time before gaze pattern recognition software becomes part of video security systems. "Experts" will use studies to show that shoplifters have a predictable pattern of eye movements. They will also claim that someone walking into the store with a gun in their pocket intending to shoot their ex-wife who's an employee have yet another. They will show that the sexual orientation of the shopper can be derived by observing what they look at, and thus whether they are more likely to respond to a male or female sales associate. They are motivated to do this because it'll sell the systems to major retail outlets, airports, federal buildings, universities, etc. whether or not it's true.

Re:So all my paranoid fantasies will come true? (2, Funny)

wizzahd (995765) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063749)

HAHA!
"You can't see through them," they said!
"Who would wear those?!" they said!

The best move I ever made was patenting tin foil glasses!

RTS (2, Interesting)

MorpheousMarty (1094907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060793)

This needs to replace the mouse. Give me this and Supreme Commander and I will... have fun.

Re:RTS (3, Interesting)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060951)

Using your eyes as a mouse [bbc.co.uk] has been tried before, but I've heard from user researchers that the eye jiggles around too much to make a reliable pointing device. If you've ever been at a usability study where there's an eye tracking device, you know what I mean -- the eye tracking dot dances all over the text, and even when a user's focusing on a button the eye dances around the corners of the button, and to the nearby buttons, while the user processes the button's meaning and makes sure he's clicking the right thing. One thing I can't explain is how the military uses eye tracking to aim missiles -- it seems like that system would run into the same problems.

My basic feeling towards your idea is that it's absolutely great for disabled people, but personally I like being able to look at one thing but have my mouse hovering over something else.

Re:RTS (1)

Steendor (917855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061049)

...I like being able to look at one thing but have my mouse hovering over something else.
For instance when the mouse cursor has to hover over the form/control you're typing in while you're looking at something else.

Re:RTS (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061177)

The eyes have to move a lot because otherwise you will see nothing.

Retinal cells only detected *changes* in light intensity, not the light level itself. If your eyes doesn't move for a few seconds, what you are looking at will vanish completely.

Try it; it's very hard to hold your eye perfectly still though.

Re:RTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19061359)

If you've ever tried the party trick: Bloody Mary where you look into a mirror and repeat "Bloody Mary" over and over while not blinking and trying to concentrate on one spot, you'll see this effect. Everything gets blurry and grey and eventually disappears. Rough on the eyes, though. :-)

Re:RTS: Already corrected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19061189)

The eye jumps around fairly randomly every 1/10 of a second or so. This jumping actually helps to produce your peripheral vision. Now what about Laser Eye surgery? They fire a laser beam to remove bits of your eye. Of course, if the eye was moving about, then they'd actually be removing wrong bits of the eye. This was identified several years ago, and is now corrected with eye-tracking technology [theeyeinstitute.com.au] . The laser only fires when the eye is not jumping around.

Re:RTS (1)

Lucan Varo (974578) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061191)

One thing I can't explain is how the military uses eye tracking to aim missiles -- it seems like that system would run into the same problems.
Don't they use the position/orientation of the HUD for that? The little glass projection screen is right in front of the eye and already displays the tactical info that can be seen there. INAMS.

Re:RTS (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061345)

One thing I can't explain is how the military uses eye tracking to aim missiles -- it seems like that system would run into the same problems.
For missiles, I think the jitter wouldn't matter much. It should be pretty easy to average the direction that the eyes are looking at, while still providing control that is as responsive as the missile's capability to change direction. Those things have a pretty large turning radius. Also, when dealing with high explosives, it matters a lot less which part of the target you hit. For air-to-air, it really doesn't matter which wing you hit, or even if you hit the engine. You still have a pretty good chance of bringing down the plane.

The only real problem would be to train the gunner to focus on the target. This would seem to be much easier when the gunner is not the same person responsible for taking evasive action from other threats, ie. two-seaters only.

Re:RTS (1)

kurzweilfreak (829276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061713)

It's called a saccade [wikipedia.org] , and as another poster noted below, you wouldn't be able to see without it.

Re:RTS (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062271)

One thing I can't explain is how the military uses eye tracking to aim missiles -- it seems like that system would run into the same problems.

I would think that targeting buildings wouldn't need accuracy down to a millimeter. The targets are much bigger - with dialog buttons you're trying to target something that's maybe 2cm wide x 1cm tall.

Re:RTS (1)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062635)

True, however dialog buttons are about 2 feet from my face, and missile targets are between 10,000 and 100,000 feet away. Coupled with the fact that an object's visual size increases or decreases respective to the square of the distance to the object, missile targets seem like they'd be notably smaller than a dialog button.

However, I do believe that eye tracking missile systems significantly zoom in on a target location. Given the periphery vision required to judge the location of the target based on context and surroundings, I'd guess that targets are probably the size of a dialog button. But I haven't used the systems myself, or recently seen a video on their use, so I can't really say.

Re:RTS (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063483)

I have no idea how those eye tracking missile systems work either, but it may be (at least I would hope) checking the target as the missile travels as well. As it gets closer, it can take new readings and track more accurately.

Re:RTS (1)

Stone Rhino (532581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063585)

The military doesn't use eye tracking. They track the whole head, so when you turn and look its frame of vision follows yours.

Re:RTS (1)

mleugh (973240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061585)

Simply blink to click.

Re:RTS (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062563)

And shoot during a game whilst your trying to sit and be a sniper? I think not...

And I'd be pretty screwed if I was trying to shoot multiple enemy's quickly, I try and focus on where they are, not blink them away - I grew out of the "I can't see them so they can't see me" thing a long time ago ;)

Re:RTS (2, Funny)

mleugh (973240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062705)

My god, you're right! Nostril flaring (à la fluffy bunnies) would be a much better control method.

Yarrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19060809)

Clearly pirates are impervious

What could go wrong? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19060815)

1. "Honestly honey, I was not looking at her breasts and that camera is a lying snitch".
2. "Hey Bob, couldn't help to notice that you were staring at your crotch. Could I interest you in a Corvette?"
3. "PLEASE PULL UP YOUR PANTS".

Ad space boom at titsandass.com (2, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061179)

One way this technology could be used is to pay per view. ie. Freelance advertisers put up display ads and get paid per view. A bit like Google ads in the physical world.

Que the Minority Report reference..... (1)

RichMeatyTaste (519596) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060833)

"Mr Yamamoto?"

Re:Que the Minority Report reference..... (1)

darkciti (877732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062475)

Yeah, No thanks! I'll stick with sunglasses and cast iron hats if I have to. Marketing/Advertising is already out of control - they just added Google to their arsenal; so they need to just chill for a few years and be happy with what they have.

It's a Phillip K. Dick Future, (4, Insightful)

justsomecomputerguy (545196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060855)

we'll just be living in it.

Re:It's a Phillip K. Dick Future, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19060899)

And Remember, Save the Texas Prairee Chicken!
Leave bush outta this article.

Privacy (4, Interesting)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060873)

I hope some privacy groups outlaw this. I understand that being in public means you're open to any prying eyes about how you're dressed, which direction you're heading in or even the things to say to other people in the open. But tracking eye movement? I`m not sure if that feels "ok" with me... It's common understanding that even in public your "thoughts" are private and your own.. wouldn't it also apply to what your mind decides to look at?..

If I decide to sneak a peak at an ad that shows a gay couple.. or shows an ad on how to deal with drug addiction.. will I be labeled as a gay drug addict to that/those companies?

Maybe I should take off my tin foil hat for a bit and get some fresh air.. hopefully I`m just over reacting.

Re:Privacy (0, Flamebait)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060945)

Why don't we outlaw people realizing what you're looking at as well.

Re:Privacy (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061059)

Becasue people relizing what you are looking at don't store the information in a database to be sliced and splice and diced.

How would this have been used during McArthyism? Is not an unreasonable question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy [wikipedia.org]

Cool tech, and think ther cuiold be some great applications.

Also, you could use it to create guns that will only shoot when pointed at what your looking at.
So you lok at your targer, squeez the trigger, then just wave the gun in the general area.

Re:Privacy (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061125)

In that case lets outlaw the hiring of people who write down what you're looking at for stores. Clearly our right to privacy must be upheld when in public areas doing things that are completely public.

Re:Privacy (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061223)

Clearly our right to privacy must be upheld when in public areas doing things that are completely public
As long as my right to privacy in pubic areas is upheld, I'll be fine.

Re:Privacy (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061611)

As long as you conceal your pubic areas in public, I'll be fine.

Re:Privacy (1)

Peacenik45 (988593) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061175)

If I decide to sneak a peak at an ad that shows a gay couple.. or shows an ad on how to deal with drug addiction.. will I be labeled as a gay drug addict to that/those companies?
Only if you sneak another peak ... and another, and another, and another.

Re:Privacy (1)

hexed_2050 (841538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061181)

No you won't, you are totally wrong. You forgot to add the tin foil hat after gay drug addict :(

h

Re:Privacy (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061399)

I think you're overreacting...

"It's less accurate than those systems, but it is good enough to let us know whether you are looking at a display or billboard or not," says lead developer Roel Vertegaal from Queen's University in Ontario, Canada.

I read that as a binary "yes-no" device: "Are those eyeballs looking at the ad? Yes or no?" If the answer is "no," then the camera only knows what you are NOT looking at, i.e. the billboard of interest.

It also doesn't appear to be able to determine WHO is looking at the target, just that SOMEBODY is looking at it.

Re:Privacy (3, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061499)

That's before you hook it up to a face recognition system. The correct time to legislate is before foreseeable abuses happen, not after.

Re:Privacy (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062053)

Colour me clueless, but I don't see a privacy issue with determining when people are looking at the ad, as long as there is no identification of who is doing the looking (including both absolute and relative identification).

Are you looking at me? (2, Funny)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060881)

Are you looking at me?

I'm sure Travis Bickle would have something to say about this...

Oh no... (4, Funny)

MrSteveSD (801820) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060915)

I hope they don't start building these devices into women's clothing.

Re:Oh no... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060943)

Could be worse, they could implant them in the backs of their heads... then women would have eyes where they've always claimed they had them.

Re:Oh no... (1)

ddoctor (977173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061199)

Women have got them built-in already!!!!!!

Um, sunglasses anyone? (3, Funny)

justsomecomputerguy (545196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060939)

just a low-tech thought... But where will I find a pair that don't clash with my tinfoil hat?

Re:Um, sunglasses anyone? (1)

not-enough-info (526586) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061205)

Make sure your sunglasses block IR, because that's what this camera uses to detect pupils.

Re:Um, sunglasses anyone? (1)

senatorpjt (709879) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062195)

Unless your sunglasses are made of salt, they block IR.

Re:Um, sunglasses anyone? (3, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062479)

Almost all sunglasses are transparent in near-ir, which this uses. Glasses tend to be opaque in far-ir, but unless you get some really expensive, special sunglasses, they will be transparent in near-ir.

The near-ir blocking glass found in digital cameras has a very blue tint, so I don't know how feasable it would be to make sunglasses that didn't have that blue tint and still blocked near-ir.

we already have something like that (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19060977)

they're called moms.

Advertisers fail at life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19060989)

Advertisers need to end their delusions, they must realize that they nearly killed the internet, and are in the process of killing TV.

The reason people do not like your advertisements is because advertising is ANNOYING. We, the Anonymous Internet Horde, will bury you. You can track our gaze, you can show us all the colors in the rainbow including some new ones, but you will not sell us anything. You are finished as an industry.

Re:Advertisers fail at life. (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061193)

Marketing groups are scared of this too. If companies use this device they will find out that the marketing group has been lying to them. Nobody looks at the ads, and the companies have been wasting millions of dollars a year. The only thing the marketers can actually sell is their own services.

Re:Advertisers fail at life. (1)

delur (1090035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063011)

And this new technology helps them annoy lots more customers in the process.

Advertisements kill everything (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061221)

Advertisers need to end their delusions, they must realize that they nearly killed the internet, and are in the process of killing TV


Marketing is one of the most obnoxious influences in modern history, perhaps only lawyers and religion are as destructive.


There are people like engineers, programmers, farmers, teachers, machinists, etc, who do productive work. These people *create* goods and services. They *generate* stuff that people enjoy, the result of their work is more than the input.


What marketing does to their customer is, if everything goes well, to increase market share, which means another corporation loses an equivalent market share. Marketing generates nothing. The result of marketing is always less than the input.

Re:Advertisements kill everything (1)

SoVeryTired (967875) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062341)

In all fairness, it does provide a means to distribute content to people for free. How many ad-funded websites have you seen today which otherwise wouldn't exist?
Paid advertisements mean cheap newspapers, free TV programs for the end user. For businesses, they provide an incredibly useful business model (Google, anyone?).
I think it's a bit rich to say that ads don't help anyone, anywhere. However, I agree that it can go to far on occasion.

Re:Advertisements kill everything (1)

Scoth (879800) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062385)

I'm not so sure I completely agree with your last point. If I buy something of a type I've never bought before because of an advertisement, then I'm not taking market share away from anyone. Only if I switch from one type to another.

I do, however, agree that marketing is probably the most obnoxious influence :)

Re:Advertisements kill everything (1)

Pax00 (266436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063893)

As a graphic artist who has done ad work I must agree and disagree. yes it helps to pull customers one way or another, but at the same point in time it helps to promote a product that someone may have never heard of. so then it generates new business that a company may have never had otherwise.

now, I will say this as well, I do think that advertising has gotten out of hand. everything is an ad for something these days and I am tired of it. that is why I will only do an ad design, flier or whatever for local bands and businesses that I believe in myself.

Re:Advertisers fail at life. (1)

Jessta (666101) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062215)

Yep, poor google. With the advertising industry finished I guess they'll be closing up shop too.

what? (1)

bwy (726112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061013)

Admittedly they are trying more benign stuff too like better hearing aids

Am I the only one who didn't understand that statement? Probably.

Re:what? (1)

Steendor (917855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061141)

Probably not - I had to finish the sentence before coming to a conclusion that may not be what they wanted to say.

...but I doubt that will make up for movie posters that make a song and dance whenever you glance their way.
They seem to be comparing the potential annoyance factor of the different technologies.

Re:what? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061171)

If you have a hearing aid that can filter out sound not coming from a particular direction, then presumably the people who are looking at you are a good direction not to filter sound from.

Use your imagination.

Re:what? (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061369)

Yes.
They're trying to build hearing aids that use some kind of sonic location (determining sound origin) in combination with this eye-watching technology: when someone is looking at you and talking, they probably intend for you to hear it. Hence, it adjusts sound amplification accordingly.

Re:what? (1)

fuego451 (958976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062429)

My hearing aids have two directional microphones; one at 90 degrees forward and the other at 180 to the side. I have to push a tiny button on the aid to make the selection, I sometimes get self conscious about people thinking I'm sticking my finger in my ear, and switching becomes a pain-in-the-butt at times. These aids also have irritating sound limiters which partially block constant high or low pitch sound.

I believe it would be great to have sound pick-up focused in the direction I'm looking and I hope this technology is developed for hearing aids. Can't imagine what they'd cost though. My aids are about $3k each.

Better uses (4, Interesting)

bender647 (705126) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061055)

I'd rather see this technology used to track my focus on the desktop.

If I were them (3, Insightful)

Who235 (959706) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061071)

. . .movie posters that make a song and dance whenever you glance their way

If I were them, I'd make it so they moved more when you looked away - causing you to look back.

In all seriousness though, this technology is a little creepy. Not only that, but tracking eye movement has to have better applications than simply refining the process of ad targeting.

Re:If I were them (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061239)

The problem is with billboards, and other advertisements like that, is that they're very expensive, and you can't really tell how well the ad did. Sure you can do things like analyze sales before and after the ad went up, but that doesn't really show that people are actually paying attention to the ad. Correlation vs. Causation. Anyway, I think that they want to know how many people are actually looking at these ads so that businesses can better justify the money they are spending on the advertising. If you've ever worked for anyone doing the advertising, you'd know that the numbers are the most important thing. If you can't put numbers as to how much money your ads are generating, then it's hard to justify to the higher ups why you are spending so much money.

You don't need eye tracking for that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19061261)

Well, they could do it the low tech way and just use this optical illusion [ritsumei.ac.jp] , instead.

Great fun to print out. Freaks people out if they don't understand the trick ("Look at this new e-paper! Cool, huh?")

Sure (1)

Artifex (18308) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061305)

You could also build it into an anti-personnel mine for battlefield use.

Imagine it sitting there quietly until people come across it. If it thinks it's not discovered, it's dormant, unless someone gets right up on it. But if someone looks while nearby, the element of surprise is blown anyway, so booooom. In fact, you could adapt it to make imagery like glinting metal with a tiny projector, when they're nearby, so they're drawn to it.

Hey... it's no worse than making bomblets that look like kids' toys. Though I'm sure if they do this, someone will have the projector pump out little happy cartoon characters.

Take that Mom (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061087)

See Mom, I told you I have good reasons for not going outside.

Winston Smith, could you please watch the ad (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061105)

You know the shows you like to watch are paid for by the advertisers. You need to do your civic duty and watch them. Also buy at least one product from the ads you watch each week. We'll make sure you do.

Re:Winston Smith, could you please watch the ad (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061167)

That's an interesting idea. Either you buy tvs that have this device built into them, or they'll keep their television signal encrypted making it impossible to watch. I think it'd be the death of television myself with the direct to DVD market booming.

Re:Winston Smith, could you please watch the ad (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062509)

I'm pretty sure that YouTube would get the market share and not the DVD business.

To commemorate the occasion... (1)

EtherealStrife (724374) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061155)

I hereby coin the phrase "ass click"

Beat the system ... (2, Funny)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061195)

... cross your eyes.

And you thought... (1)

hexed_2050 (841538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061201)

And you thought thinking that the eyes of 6 foot picture of some dead guy following you was weird when you moved throughout the house... wait until heritage pictures meet this new technology.

Somebody's gotta say it, might as well be me... (5, Funny)

Crazyscottie (947072) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061227)

In Soviet Russia, movie posters watch YOU!

Better use (1)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061237)

Now you don't have to wear the heavy helmet to aim and shoot in an apache.

Already here (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061299)

A Canadian firm has launched a device that can track the gaze of multiple people from up to 10 metres away.


Such devices already exist. They're called tits.

Tried a research prototype a few months ago... (2, Interesting)

Telcontar (819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061389)

In Japan, there is a similar project studying whether eye tracking can be used to see how well people follow a virtual reality presentation. The idea is that if your gaze wanders off, then you lost track, and the presentation backtracks a bit to gain your attention again.

The tool needed extensive calibration and only works reliably for people who do not wear glasses. So I think the technology is still a bit away from everyday commercial use.

Even when not wearing glasses, the tool is not very precise. The demo had a male and female speaker. When I tried it, the male presenter complained that I was distracted by looking at the window next to the girl. Of course I was not distracted by the view of the landscape, but by the girl ;-)

What does it look like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19061471)

What does it look like and how can I destroy it?

So.. (1)

patlabor (56309) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061549)

If a poster rests on a wall and no one is there to see it, does it sing and dance?

Thumbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19061703)

The only thing I want is a poster that will give me the thumbs-up whenever I walk by.

Minority Report spin on the eye-tracker (1)

Stony Stevenson (954022) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061777)

What's stopping someone from marrying this type of technology with a retinal scanner or image capturing device? There's a tonnes of privacy issues at stake here.

From a Computerworld interview with Roel Vertegaal [computerworld.com.au] , the researcher responsible for the technology:

Although Vertegaal ruled out the marriage of the eyebox2 technology with retina scanners or image capturing devices, he conceded the possibility was out there and warned that if customers chose to combine the eyebox2 technology with other image capturing devices, there was little his company could do about it.

"[Already], face recognition software is being used in Europe to track shopping mall theft," he said. "While we do not encourage such use, and given that our cameras cannot identify people or provide images, it still seems these directions are already being taken by other companies regardless of our hardware."

Re:Minority Report spin on the eye-tracker (1)

jb1z (1099055) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061801)

What's stopping someone from marrying this type of technology with a retinal scanner or image capturing device? Nothing.

countermeasures, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19061783)

Time to research that "distinctive IR signature " of human eyes, and replicate it in hardware, then mount some opposite every such billboard.

I will smash or destroy every one I come across (2, Funny)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061911)

This sort of device will not be tolerated by me or my species.

I firmly believe that advertisers should be put on a secluded island so they can fight to the death.

Re:I will smash or destroy every one I come across (1)

pi8you (710993) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062369)

They're gonna need a pretty big island to fit them all, might I suggest Antarctica? Might even have some room for the lawyers.

pedo detector! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19061987)

One day, someone will have the great idea that pedophiles could be caught using this technology. They'll surely pay attention to groups of children, their eye movement will reveal that they'll look back when their gaze tracks over a bunch of kids... Anything to catch the pedophiles, right? Since only pedophiles have to fear this, it could also track when people are suspiciously and unnaturally looking AWAY from the children. That would mean they're thinking about them, paying attention to them by looking away. They must be pedos, too!

Remember this next time you see a bunch of school kids on the streets. In the future, police might come knocking on your door asking questions about what it was that interested you when you took such a long glance at them...

possible uses (1)

hareball101 (1090809) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062019)

They could use the technology for applications like this [news.com.au] .

One step closer to "Minority Report" (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062063)

How does Philip K. Dick feel about this? We can only hope he can prevent this tech^H^H^H^Hatrocity from coming to the US by filing some kind of lawsuit citing prior art.

Where are the precogs? Who's writing the pre-crime legislation? Is the Gap salivating at the thought of a worldwide exclusive license to this atrocity?

A killer app (and partner) (3, Funny)

can56 (698639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19062579)

for this technology: Apple Computer announced today that it has developed a computer chip that can store and play music in women's breast implants. The iBreast will cost $499 to $599. This is considered to be a major breakthrough because women are always complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them. Imagine if, everytime you looked at a breast, it played music!

Re:A killer app (and partner) (1)

Pax00 (266436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063967)

available models

1) The Cure - Plays - "Lets Go To Bed"
2) Tool - Plays "Prison Sex"
3) The Doors - Plays "Light My Fire"
4) Britney Spears - Plays "Hit Me Baby One More Time"

More models coming soon

Good News For the MPAA (1)

Smight (1099639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063303)

How long do you think it will be before they incorporate this into DVDs so your movie won't play until they are sure you've watched every second of the ads? Oh don't worry, we'll pause while you blink. Maybe rewind a little bit.

So, is 'Digital Matrix' behind this? (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19063317)

You should see the movie "Looker".. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looker [wikipedia.org] & http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/ [imdb.com]

scrapetorrent search for Looker torrent http://tinyurl.com/2rzte2 [tinyurl.com]

It's all about advertising and other evil goals.
They develop a technique to track viewers eye movements and a computer helps them improve the commercials to maximize profits by modifying the models (plastic surgery) and hypnotizing the viewers. And all that crap.
And then they use the technique to try to take over the government. Pretty deep stuff for 1981.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?