Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 8;24(12):1772–1779. doi: 10.1038/s41593-021-00947-w

Fig. 2. Across-participant gaze decoding results.

Fig. 2

a, Single-participant examples of successful gaze decoding for three viewing behaviors. b, Predicted error (PE) correlates with the Euclidean error (EE) between real and predicted gaze positions. This allows for filtering of the test set after decoding based on estimated reliability. Single-participant data with a regression line are plotted. Participants were split into 80% most reliable (low PE, blue) and 20% least reliable participants (high PE, orange). Scores are normalized for visualization. c, Group results. Top, gaze decoding expressed as the Pearson correlation between true and decoded gaze trajectory for the five key datasets featuring fixations, 3× smooth pursuit and visual search. Participants are color coded according to PE. Whisker box plots for low-PE participants (central line, median; box, 25th and 75th percentile; whiskers, all data points not considered outliers; outliers, data points outside 1.5× interquartile range) and single-participant data (blue and orange dots) for all are plotted. Bottom, time-collapsed group average histograms of decoded positions relative to the true positions (0, 0) in visual degrees. The color depicts decoding probability (black represents high). d, Test error as a function of how many participants were used for model training. e, Gaze decoding from the eyeballs and early visual cortex for time-shifted gaze labels. f, Subimaging temporal resolution. The model performance (explained variance normalized for each participant) depending on how many subimaging samples were decoded is plotted. The data in df show group-level mean ± s.e.m. (black lines) as well as single-participant data (blue dots) of the results obtained for the visual search dataset 5. Source data are provided.

Source data