EMIP Toolkit: A Python Library for Customized Post-processing
of the Eye Movements in Programming Dataset
Naser Al Madi
Waterville, Maine, USA
Drew T. Guarnera
The College of Wooster
Wooster, Ohio, USA
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Jonathan I. Maletic
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio, USA
The use of eye tracking in the study of program comprehension in
software engineering allows researchers to gain a better understand-
ing of the strategies and processes applied by programmers. Despite
the large number of eye tracking studies in software engineering,
very few datasets are publicly available. The existence of the large
Eye Movements in Programming Dataset (EMIP) opens the door for
new studies and makes reproducibility of existing research easier.
In this paper, a Python library (the EMIP Toolkit) for customized
post-processing of the EMIP dataset is presented. The toolkit is
specically designed to make using the EMIP dataset easier and
more accessible. It implements features for xation detection and
correction, trial visualization, source code lexical data enrichment,
and mapping xation data over areas of interest. In addition to the
toolkit, a ltered token-level dataset with scored recording quality
is presented for all Java trials (accounting for 95.8% of the data) in
the EMIP dataset.
•Software and its engineering →Software organization and
•Human-centered computing →
eye-movement, programming, source code, eye tracking, toolkit,
ACM Reference Format:
Naser Al Madi, Drew T. Guarnera, Bonita Sharif, and Jonathan I. Maletic.
2021. EMIP Toolkit: A Python Library for Customized Post-processing of
the Eye Movements in Programming Dataset. In ETRA ’21: 2021 Symposium
on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA ’21 Short Papers), May
25–27, 2021, Virtual Event, Germany. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6 pages.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM
must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish,
to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specic permission and/or a
fee. Request permissions from firstname.lastname@example.org.
ETRA ’21 Short Papers, May 25–27, 2021, Virtual Event, Germany
©2021 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-8345-5/21/05.. .$15.00
Eye tracking is gaining popularity as a tool in human-oriented
software engineering, providing evidence on attention and the
cognitive processes of programmers [Obaidellah et al
popularity is evident by surveying 31 papers in the eld in 2015
[Shara et al
2015] and 63 papers in 2018 [Obaidellah et al
practical guide on how to conduct studies in software engineering
was also published in 2020 [Shara et al. 2020].
One of the rst papers to use eye tracking in software engineer-
ing research is [Crosby and Stelovsky 1990] in 1990, yet the use of
eye tracking did not become a well-established research method
in software engineering until 2010-2012 [Lai et al
the use of eye tracking in software engineering research can be
categorized into ve areas: program comprehension [Aschwanden
and Crosby 2006; Bednarik and Tukiainen 2006; Binkley et al
Busjahn et al
2011; Crosby and Stelovsky 1990; Duru et al
Maalej et al
2014; Sharif and Maletic 2010; Turner et al
bugging [Bednarik and Tukiainen 2007; Hejmady and Narayanan
2012; Romero et al
2002], model comprehension [De Smet et al
2014; Guéhéneuc 2006; Jeanmart et al
2009; Porras and Guéhéneuc
2010; Sharif and Maletic 2010; Soh et al
2012; Yusuf et al
collaborative programming [Sharma et al
2015; Stein and Brennan
2004], and traceability [Ali et al
2012; Sharif et al
2014]. The use of eye tracking in the study of program com-
prehension in software engineering allows researchers to gain a
better understanding of the strategies and processes applied by
programmers [Madi et al
2020, 2021; Obaidellah et al
2015]. With this understanding of the experience and needs
of software developers, better tools and support can be provided to
enhance productivity and the quality of software.
Despite the large number of eye tracking studies in software
engineering [Obaidellah et al
2018], very few datasets are publicly
available. The existence of a large dataset of eye movements in pro-
gramming enables a) reproducibility of prior studies and b) accessi-
bility of eye movement data to people who might not neceessarily
have an eye tracker but are interested in analyzing/visualizing eye
tracking data in unique ways. This opens the doors to whole new
avenues of research. A community eort was undertaken to pro-
duce one such dataset - Eye Movements In Programming Dataset
(EMIP) [Bednarik et al
2020]. The EMIP dataset was an interna-
tional and multi-institutional eort that involved eleven research
ETRA ’21 Short Papers, May 25–27, 2021, Virtual Event, Germany Al Madi, et al.
teams across eight countries on four continents. The raw data of
the large dataset (N=216) is freely available for download under the
Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA license [Bednarik et al
order to start answering specic comprehension questions about
how the gaze moves over the code, the EMIP dataset needs to be
In this paper, we present a Python library for customized post-
processing of the EMIP dataset that we call the EMIP Toolkit. The
toolkit is specically designed to make the EMIP dataset easier and
more accessible to directly address a researcher’s comprehension
questions. It implements features for xation detection and correc-
tion, trial visualization, source code lexical data enrichment, and
mapping xation data over areas of interest in the source code. This
paper makes the following contributions:
A toolkit for customized post-processing of the EMIP dataset
enabling researchers to directly query the data to answer
specic comprehension questions.
A processed version of the EMIP dataset (for all Java trials)
that is ltered, corrected, and inspected with xation data,
source code token data, and lexical information tags.
Both the toolkit and the processed subset of the data are publicly
available under a Creative Commons license to support future
research and replication. The rest of the paper is organized to
provide context to the importance and need for this toolkit and act
as a description of the toolkit features and its potential use.
2 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION
The Eye Movements In Programming Dataset (EMIP) is the only
large programming eye movements dataset that we know of that
is publicly available [Bednarik et al
2020]. EMIP was collected
through an international eort that consisted of eleven research
teams across eight countries on four continents. This allows for
collecting data from a large number of participants (n=216) from
diverse backgrounds and native languages. The same eye tracking
apparatus and software were used for the data collection with
consistent experimental setup.
The advantages of the EMIP dataset are a) that it is publicly
available in raw unltered form, b) consists of a large number of
participants, and c) includes data from participants with diverse
levels of programming experience and native languages. These char-
acteristics allow for new studies on themes such as the dierences
between eye movements of novices and experts and debugging
strategies among others. At the same time, the dataset is provided
in a raw data format, and the software provided by the eye tracker
manufacturer is discontinued, limited in what features it provides
and not free. We direct the reader to Bednarik et al. [Bednarik et al
2020] for a complete description of the dataset.
3 EMIP TOOLKIT
In this section we provide the details of our Python library for
customized post-processing of the EMIP dataset. The toolkit is
specically designed to make using the EMIP dataset easier and
more accessible by providing the following functions:
Parsing raw data les from the EMIP dataset into Experiment,
Trial, and Fixation containers.
Customizable dispersion-based xation detection algorithm
implementation according to the manual of the SMI eye
tracker used in the data collection.
•Raw data and ltered data visualizations for each trial.
Performing hit testing between xations and AOIs to deter-
mine the xations over each AOI.
Customizable oset-based xation correction implementa-
tion for each trial.
Customizable Areas Of Interest (AOIs) mapping implemen-
tation at the line level or token level in source code for each
Visualizing AOIs before and after xations overlay on the
Mapping source code tokens to generated AOIs and eye
Adding source code lexical category tags to eye movement
data using srcML [Collard et al
2011]. srcML is a static analy-
sis tool and data format that provides very accurate syntactic
categories (method signatures, parameters, function names,
method calls, declarations and so on) for source code. We
use it to enhance the eye movements dataset to enable better
The complete code for the toolkit, a Jupyter Notebook exam-
ples/tutorial highlighting the main features of the toolkit, and the
processed EMIP dataset are available at https://osf.io/djn9s/
3.1 Data Containers
The three main containers of the EMIP Toolkit are:
Experiment: Represents all the trials and associated data for
a single participant.
Trial: Represents the samples and xations in a single trial
Fixation: Represents the data of a single ltered xation
consisting of multiple samples.
The experiment container implements a parser for raw eye track-
ing data les. The parser splits raw data into trials and adds the eye
tracking samples from each trial to its container. The trial container
stores data including trial number, participant ID, and the stimu-
lus that is used in the trial. The trial container also implements a
dispersion-based xation detection algorithm that converts raw
samples into xations. In addition, the container implements xa-
tion correction by oset, and trial data visualization. The xation
container stores the xations generated by the detection algorithm
including trial ID, participant ID, xation timestamp, xation dura-
tion, xation coordinates, and the code token the xation overlays.
The three containers are able to parse all raw data les and
provide a structured view of the data that makes processing data
easier. All other features of the EMIP Toolkit are implemented as
free functions to make using them independent from the specic
structure of the EMIP dataset.
3.2 Fixation Detection
The EMIP Toolkit implements a dispersion-based xation detection
algorithm. This algorithm distinguishes xations form saccades,
blinks, and errors based on the temporal and spacial dispersion of
eye tracking samples [Nyström and Holmqvist 2010]. The main
EMIP Toolkit ETRA ’21 Short Papers, May 25–27, 2021, Virtual Event, Germany
event that is often studied is xation duration, since xation dura-
tion is considered an indicator of information processing in human
cognition [Rayner 1998]. Therefore, the most important pieces of in-
formation that a xation detection algorithm produces are xation
location (coordinates) on the screen, and xation duration.
Among the many types of xation detection algorithms, the
dispersion-based algorithms are most commonly used to detect x-
ation events. The concept of dispersion-based algorithms consists
of identifying the raw eye tracker samples as belonging to a single
xation when the samples are dispersed tightly within a limited
region on the screen for a minimum period of time (in our imple-
mentation this is the parameter minimum_duration and it is set by
default to 50 milliseconds). Under this type of algorithm, spatial
and temporal information about samples are taken in consideration
to detect xations and saccades that are implicitly detected as based
on the time and jumps between xations [Nyström and Holmqvist
The most prominent dispersion-based xation detection algo-
rithm is Dispersion-Threshold Identication (I-DT) [Karthik et al
2019; Nyström and Holmqvist 2010]. This is the preferred xation
detection algorithm by the manufacturer of the eye tracker accord-
ing to their extended manual [noa 2011]. The algorithm starts with
a window equal to the minimum_duration value (50 milliseconds by
default), which results in excluding any xations shorter than 50 mil-
liseconds and considering them as noise. This window is expanded
one sample at a time if the sample is within a specic dispersion
radius (in our implementation it is called maximum_dispersion and
it takes a value of 25 pixels by default). Once a sample is identied
outside of the allowed dispersion radius, the samples in the window
are considered a xation and a new window starts. The dispersion
calculation takes in account vertical and horizontal distances and
it is calculated as shown in Equation 1. The potential sample is
added to the window, and if the dispersion value is greater than the
threshold the most recent sample is removed. Equation 1 expects
to be lists of the x, y coordinates of the
samples in the window including the most recent sample that is
being evaluated. The equation calculates the dierence between
the furthest samples in the window, and that dispersion value is
then compared to the maximum_dispersion threshold. When all of
the samples belonging to a xation are detected in the window, the
xation coordinates are registered at the centroid of the window
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 =(𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑥) − 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑥))
+ (𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑦) − 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑦)) ...(1)
3.3 Generating Area Of Interests
An important factor in analyzing eye tracking data is to decide on
the areas of interest on the stimuli to focus the analysis on. The
two predominant areas in eye tracking studies with source code
are the line-level and the token-level areas of interest. In line-level
studies the eye tracking behaviour is studied with each line of code
as a single unit, and such studies can compare the duration of time
a programmer spends on a function prototype in comparison to
other source code lines. Similarly, token-level studies focus on the
(a) Stimulus before adding areas of interests.
(b) Stimulus after adding areas of interests.
Figure 1: EMIP stimulus "Java Rectangle" visualization be-
fore and after adding Areas of Interest (AOIs).
eye movement behaviour on each code token - any set of characters
that is surrounded by spaces. Token-level studies can compare eye
movement behaviour on high frequency code tokens in comparison
to low frequency tokens [Al Madi 2020].
In the EMIP Toolkit we implement a function for drawing Areas
of Interest (AOIs) around stimuli from the EMIP dataset on the
token-level and line level. Figure 1 shows a sample AOI allocation
for the stimulus "Java Rectangle" where AOIs are allocated at the
token level. The function
in the toolkit provides
the following information for each area of interest:
kind: Analysis level, and takes one of two values - "sub-line"
(AOIs calculated at the token level) , "line" (AOIs calculated
at the line level).
name: Line and part number for each token in the code. For
example, the rst token in the rst line would be named "line
1 part 1."
ETRA ’21 Short Papers, May 25–27, 2021, Virtual Event, Germany Al Madi, et al.
•x: X-coordinate of the upper left corner of the AOI.
•y: Y-coordinate of the upper left corner of the AOI.
•width: Width of the AOI in pixels.
•height: Height of the AOI in pixels.
•image: Name of the stimulus le used in the trial.
3.4 Trial Data Visualization
Trial data visualization is important for inspecting the validity of the
data collected in each trial. EMIP Toolkit provides a single function
that allows for customized visualization of any trial from any subject
in the EMIP dataset. Figure 2 shows a sample visualization of trial
5 by subject 12 showing raw samples in red and detected xation
from the I-DT algorithm described earlier in green.
Figure 2: Sample visualization of trial 5 by subject 12 show-
ing raw samples (in red) and detected xation (in green).
The EMIP Toolkit function
generates an image of
the trial visualization with the same resolution as the trial stimulus.
The function takes the following parameters:
•images_path: Path for the trial stimulus image.
draw_raw_data: Boolean indicating whether raw samples
draw_ltered_xations: Boolean indicating whether detected
xations from the I-DT algorithm are drawn.
•save_image: Boolean indicating whether the resulting visu-
alization should be saved as an image.
3.5 Fixation Correction Through Oset
There are many types of systematic errors that could aect an eye
tracking study as stated in Al Madi et al. [Al Madi 2020]. This kind
of error is caused by an invalidation to the calibration process that is
caused by the subject moving or an inconsistency between the setup
during calibration and the experiment. In many of these cases, the
recorded xations can shift from their actual position on a line of
text/code and result in an erroneous recording of xation position
in a trial. Many of these erroneous trials that fall below a specic
quality threshold are often ltered and neglected by researchers
depending on the research goals. In some cases, applying an oset
(a) Error: example shows shifting down and to the right.
(b) Corrected: using oset (X: -100, Y: -100).
Figure 3: An example of a xation correction by applying an
to all xations can result in restoring the erroneous xations to
their original correct position.
The EMIP Toolkit provides a xation correction function that
applies an oset to any trial that can be used with the trial visu-
alization function by an expert to salvage erroneous eye tracking
trials. The function
takes an x-oset and y-oset
as arguments and updates the positions of all trial samples. It is
designed to be called any number of times, and it keeps a history
of applied osets that is recorded with the trial visualization and
can be reset (undone) at a later time.
Figure 3-a shows a trial with shifting error, where all the samples
are shifted to the right and down. Considering the large number
of trials in the EMIP dataset this pattern repeats in many trials.
EMIP Toolkit ETRA ’21 Short Papers, May 25–27, 2021, Virtual Event, Germany
Figure 3-b shows the corrected trial after applying an oset (x:-100,
y:-100) that salvaged this trial from exclusion. In the latter section
of this paper we present a ltered-corrected dataset where we apply
osets to the EMIP trials to correct them and score each trial with
a numerical value representing eye tracking recording quality.
3.6 Mapping Sources Code Tokens and srcML
Bounding boxes are generated for all tokens in the image stimulus.
In this context, a token is classied as a collection of consecutive
characters delineated by whitespace. Each bounding box is associ-
ated with a line of the source code image stimulus and the order in
which the token appears on the line. The textual content of each
bounding box is derived from a text version of the source code
using the line and order of the provided bounding box data. This
involves using whitespace on each line of the text version to split
the contents into a one to one mapping with the bounding boxes.
In addition to supplying the source code text contained within the
bounding boxes, detailed syntactic information for each token is
provided using a secondary processing phase using srcML [Collard
et al. 2011].
srcML (srcML.org) is both an XML markup format for source
code and an application capable of generating the aforementioned
markup document. The srcML infrastructure supports the C, C++,
C#, and Java programming languages. The srcML markup format
uses XML to represent the hierarchy of the source code and tag
information to identify the syntactic context for all textual tokens
within an input source document. The srcML format ensures that
all original source code content is preserved including comments
and whitesapce to prevent any content loss during conversion to
srcML and back to the source code format.
When converting source code to the srcML format, using the
option adds attributes to each tag indicating the start
and end of the line and column where each element resides within
the source code le. Since the bounding box information from
the EMIP image stimulus indicates which source line contains a
given token, a traversal of the XML DOM can be used to nd all
tags that represent a line of source content. Using the subset of
tags for a given line, the textual tokens contained within the XML
tags can be examined to determine matches with the text version
of the source code. Once a token is identied, all the tag names
that encompass that token are stored to represent the complete
hierarchy of syntactic context for a given source code element.
Each syntactic context collection is presented as a list of the
srcML tag names separated by -> to indicate the direction of the
hierarchy. This representation allows for analysis at varying levels
of granularity when considering the role of syntactic elements
in program comprehension and provides additional value to the
existing EMIP dataset. To further simplify this process, the syntactic
context provided by srcML is pre-computed and provided along
with the EMIP Toolkit and dataset to minimize run-time overhead
and reduce development eorts of potential users.
3.7 Mapping Fixations to Areas of Interest
Most eye tracking research revolves around the idea of measuring
xation duration over areas of interest. We have described xation
detection, correction, source code lexical data enrichment, and
the visualization features of EMIP Toolkit in prior sections. In this
section, we describe how xations are mapped over areas of interest
to generate the complete xation data from the EMIP dataset. The
EMIP Toolkit function hit_test takes as input the xation data
and the generated AOIs of a specic trial to calculate the xation
duration over each AOI. The function considers a xation over
an AOI if a xation is within a 25 pixel radius of an AOI, this
number is customizable in the xation detection algorithm. Each
xation consists of raw samples within a 25 pixel dispersion radius,
therefore we consider xations 25 pixels away from an area of
interest within that area of interest.
The resulting comma separated le consists of xation data over
each AOI. Each row in the resulting le corresponds to a single
xation with the following attributes on the xation and AOI it
•trial: Trial number.
•participant: Participant number.
•code_le: Stimulus lename.
•code_language: Programming language of the trial.
•timestamp: Fixation timestamp.
•duration: Fixation duration in milliseconds.
•x_cord: X-coordinate of the xation.
•y_cord: Y-coordinate of the xation.
aoi_x: X-coordinate of the area of interest under the xation.
aoi_y: Y-coordinate of the area of interest under the xation.
aoi_width: Width of the area of interest under the xation
aoi_height: Height of the area of interest under the xation
•token: Source code token under the xation.
length: Length in character spaces of the source code token
under the xation.
srcML: srcML tag of the source code token under the xation.
4 CORRECTED DATASET
The EMIP dataset contains data for Java (207 trials), Python (5 trials)
and Scala (4 trials) code. More than 95% of the trials were in Java.
We construct a ltered, corrected, and scored dataset that is a subset
of the EMIP dataset that focuses on the Java trials. The EMIP Toolkit
xation detection, visualization, adding tokens, adding srcML tags,
and applying xation overlay features were used on the EMIP
dataset to generate a cleaned, processed version of the dataset for
all the Java trials.
In some instances, the EMIP trial xation data presented a clear
shifting pattern with respect to the stimulus. Two of the authors
split the dataset and applied a general oset correction to the x and
y coordinates of the gaze data points with respect to the underlying
stimulus in each trial. This process is repeated until the location of
the data points in the visualization overlay the stimulus in a majority
of locations during a visual inspection. Some trials showed an error
pattern that can not be xed with a general oset as describe by
Al Madi in [Al Madi 2020], such trials were not included in the
Following the oset correction, each of the authors reviewed the
other authors correction and rated each data correction with a pass
ETRA ’21 Short Papers, May 25–27, 2021, Virtual Event, Germany Al Madi, et al.
or fail vote. If a particular sample receives two pass votes, the data
is accepted into the corrected dataset. If a sample received two fail
votes, the data is deemed to be invalid and dropped from the new
data set. For any sample receiving one pass and one fail vote, the
authors met to review the data sample in question and discussed
any issues to arrive at a consensus regarding the adjustments to the
sample or its presence in the data set. The nal corrected dataset is
available for download in our artifact presented in Section 3.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
We present the EMIP Toolkit, a Python library for customized post-
processing of the EMIP dataset [Bednarik et al
2020]. The toolkit is
intended to make using the EMIP dataset easier and it implements
many of the most common and needed features and algorithms
for eye tracking in program comprehension studies. In addition,
we present a corrected, ltered, and scored subset of the EMIP
dataset that is generated using the EMIP Toolkit. This subset is
ready for use by researchers interested in eye movements over
source code and serves as an example of what the EMIP Toolkit is
able to address. In the future, we aim to extend the EMIP Toolkit
to other datasets and make it a generic toolkit for processing eye
movements over source code. This goal includes adding more xa-
tion detection algorithms and algorithms that are specic to source
code, animated visualizations, and extending source code lexical
data enrichment to languages other than Java. Finally, we hope
that this work will contribute to the open data initiative set by the
EMIP dataset, and inspires future research and replication in eye
movements in programming.
2011. iView X System Manual. https://psychologie.unibas.ch/leadmin/user_upload/
Naser S Al Madi. 2020. Modeling Eye Movement for the Assessment of Programming
Prociency. Ph.D. Dissertation. Kent State University.
Nasir Ali, Zohreh Shara, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, and Giuliano Antoniol. 2012. An
empirical study on requirements traceability using eye-tracking. In 2012 28th IEEE
International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM). IEEE, 191–200.
Christoph Aschwanden and Martha Crosby. 2006. Code scanning patterns in program
comprehension. In Proceedings of the 39th hawaii international conference on system
Roman Bednarik, Teresa Busjahn, Agostino Gibaldi, Alireza Ahadi, Maria Bielikova,
Martha Crosby, Kai Essig, Fabian Fagerholm, Ahmad Jbara, Raymond Lister, et al
2020. EMIP: The eye movements in programming dataset. Science of Computer
Programming 198 (2020), 102520.
Roman Bednarik and Markku Tukiainen. 2006. An eye-tracking methodology for char-
acterizing program comprehension processes. In Proceedings of the 2006 symposium
on Eye tracking research & applications. ACM, 125–132.
Roman Bednarik and Markku Tukiainen. 2007. Analysing and Interpreting Quantitative
Eye-Tracking Data in Studies of Programming: Phases of Debugging with Multiple
Representations.. In PPIG. Citeseer, 13.
Dave Binkley, Marcia Davis, Dawn Lawrie, Jonathan I Maletic, Christopher Morrell,
and Bonita Sharif. 2013. The impact of identier style on eort and comprehension.
Empirical Software Engineering 18, 2 (2013), 219–276.
Teresa Busjahn, Carsten Schulte, and Andreas Busjahn. 2011. Analysis of code reading
to gain more insight in program comprehension. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli
Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. 1–9.
Michael L Collard, Michael J Decker, and Jonathan I Maletic. 2011. Lightweight trans-
formation and fact extraction with the srcML toolkit. In 2011 IEEE 11th international
working conference on source code analysis and manipulation. IEEE, 173–184.
Martha E Crosby and Jan Stelovsky. 1990. How do we read algorithms? A case study.
Computer 23, 1 (1990), 25–35.
Benoít De Smet, Lorent Lempereur, Zohreh Shara, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Giuliano
Antoniol, and Naji Habra. 2014. Taupe: Visualizing and analyzing eye-tracking
data. Science of Computer Programming 79 (2014), 260–278.
Hacı Ali Duru, Murat Perit Çakır, and Veysi İşler. 2013. How does software visualization
contribute to software comprehension? A grounded theory approach. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29, 11 (2013), 743–763.
Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc. 2006. TAUPE: towards understanding program comprehen-
sion. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on
Collaborative research. 1–es.
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. 197–200.
Sebastien Jeanmart, Yann-Gael Gueheneuc, Houari Sahraoui, and Naji Habra. 2009.
Impact of the visitor pattern on program comprehension and maintenance. In 2009
3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement.
G Karthik, J Amudha, and C Jyotsna. 2019. A Custom Implementation of the Velocity
Threshold Algorithm for Fixation Identication. In 2019 International Conference
on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT). IEEE, 488–492.
Meng-Lung Lai, Meng-Jung Tsai, Fang-Ying Yang, Chung-Yuan Hsu, Tzu-Chien Liu,
Silvia Wen-Yu Lee, Min-Hsien Lee, Guo-Li Chiou, Jyh-Chong Liang, and Chin-
Chung Tsai. 2013. A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning
from 2000 to 2012. Educational research review 10 (2013), 90–115.
Walid Maalej, Rebecca Tiarks, Tobias Roehm, and Rainer Koschke. 2014. On the com-
prehension of program comprehension. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering
and Methodology (TOSEM) 23, 4 (2014), 1–37.
Naser Al Madi, Cole S Peterson, Bonita Sharif, and Jonathan Maletic. 2020. Can the ez
reader model predict eye movements over code? towards a model of eye movements
over source code. In ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications.
Naser Al Madi, Cole S Peterson, Bonita Sharif, and Jonathan Maletic. 2021. From
Novice to Expert: Analysis of Token Level Eects in a Longitudinal Eye Tracking
Study. In 29th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension.
Marcus Nyström and Kenneth Holmqvist. 2010. An adaptive algorithm for xation,
saccade, and glissade detection in eyetracking data. Behavior research methods 42,
1 (2010), 188–204.
Unaizah Obaidellah, Mohammed Al Haek, and Peter C-H Cheng. 2018. A survey on
the usage of eye-tracking in computer programming. ACM Computing Surveys
(CSUR) 51, 1 (2018), 5.
Gerardo Cepeda Porras and Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc. 2010. An empirical study on
the eciency of dierent design pattern representations in UML class diagrams.
Empirical Software Engineering 15, 5 (2010), 493–522.
Keith Rayner. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years
of research. Psychological bulletin 124, 3 (1998), 372.
Pablo Romero, Richard Cox, Benedict du Boulay, and Rudi Lutz. 2002. Visual attention
and representation switching during java program debugging: A study using the
restricted focus viewer. In International Conference on Theory and Application of
Diagrams. Springer, 221–235.
Zohreh Shara, Bonita Sharif, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Andrew Begel, Roman Bednarik,
and Martha Crosby. 2020. A practical guide on conducting eye tracking studies in
software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 25, 5 (2020), 3128–3174.
Zohreh Shara, Zéphyrin Soh, and Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc. 2015. A systematic literature
review on the usage of eye-tracking in software engineering. Information and
Software Technology 67 (2015), 79–107.
Bonita Sharif and Jonathan I Maletic. 2010. An eye tracking study on camelcase and
under_score identier styles. In 2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program
Comprehension. IEEE, 196–205.
Bonita Sharif, John Meinken, Timothy Shaer, and Huzefa Kagdi. 2017. Eye movements
in software traceability link recovery. Empirical Software Engineering 22, 3 (2017),
Kshitij Sharma, Daniela Caballero, Himanshu Verma, Patrick Jermann, and Pierre
Dillenbourg. 2015. Looking AT versus looking THROUGH: A dual eye-tracking
study in MOOC context. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.[ISLS].
Zéphyrin Soh, Zohreh Shara, Bertrand Van den Plas, Gerardo Cepeda Porras, Yann-
Gaël Guéhéneuc, and Giuliano Antoniol. 2012. Professional status and expertise
for UML class diagram comprehension: An empirical study. In 2012 20th IEEE
International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, 163–172.
Randy Stein and Susan E Brennan. 2004. Another person’s eye gaze as a cue in
solving programming problems. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference
on Multimodal interfaces. 9–15.
Rachel Turner, Michael Falcone, Bonita Sharif, and Alina Lazar. 2014. An eye-tracking
study assessing the comprehension of C++ and Python source code. In Proceedings
of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. 231–234.
Braden Walters, Timothy Shaer, Bonita Sharif, and Huzefa Kagdi. 2014. Capturing
software traceability links from developers’ eye gazes. In Proceedings of the 22nd
International Conference on Program Comprehension. 201–204.
Shehnaaz Yusuf, Huzefa Kagdi, and Jonathan I Maletic. 2007. Assessing the comprehen-
sion of UML class diagrams via eye tracking. In 15th IEEE International Conference
on Program Comprehension (ICPC’07). IEEE, 113–122.