# Eye Tracking and Human Influence Factors' Impact on Quality of Experience of Mobile Gaming
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Impact of User Gaze on Mobile Gaming Experience  
Figure 5 shows a histogram of gaze confidence values derived from eye-tracking data for all users across the full set of stimuli, based on the MOS. According to the guidelines in the 'pupil_gaze_positions_info' file, which is generated during the export of recordings using Pupil Player, the confidence value reflects the accuracy of the pupil detector's measurements. A value of 0 indicates no confidence, meaning the position data should be ignored as no fixations are detected, while a value of 1 indicates perfect confidence. It is noted that useful data typically have a confidence value greater than approximately 0.6 as discussed in Section 2.1. The figure presents the MOS values across all games, stratified by confidence values and the number of subjects. It is important to note that this analysis only utilizes fixation data from the calibrated area. The results indicate that a greater number of users with higher gaze confidence were more likely to assign a higher MOS to videos with elevated resolution and frame rates. However, the ratings remain dispersed, as the distribution of subjects is relatively balanced between high and low opinion score categories across different resolutions. Additionally, it is important to note that the average gaze confidence level accounts for both the time spent watching the video and the time taken to provide a rating, as users had the option to replay certain stimuli if they felt uncertain.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1080p, 60 fps**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**720p, 60 fps**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**720p, 30 fps**} \\ \hline
**Game Name** & **F** & **Sig.** & **F** & **Sig.** & **F** & **Sig.** \\ \hline Animal Crossing & 6.004 & 0.020 & 5.696 & 0.023 & 3.290 & 0.079 \\ CSGO & 5.533 & 0.025 & 1.062 & 0.310 & 4.650 & 0.038 \\ Call of Duty & 4.208 & 0.048 & 5.822 & 0.021 & 1.985 & 0.168 \\ Code Vein & 6.896 & 0.013 & 4.075 & 0.051 & 4.877 * & 0.034 * \\ Fortine & 4.333 & 0.045 & 2.188 & 0.148 & 4.294 & 0.046 \\ Minecraft & 6.149 & 0.018 & 11.565 & 0.002 & 10.536 & 0.003 \\ PUBG & 3.348 & 0.076 & 2.435 & 0.128 & 2.967 & 0.094 \\ Rocket League & 4.310 & 0.046 & 2.005 & 0.166 & 2.336 & 0.136 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{l}{Code Vein*: 1080p, 30 fps.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Results of one-way ANOVA based on user delight.  
Figure 6 presents the relative frequency [60] of user ratings for all games, categorized by the %GoB and %PoW rating scales, along with _Neutral_ ratings on the ACR scale.  
A noticeable trend emerged in which users with lower gaze confidence tended to rate the highest quality video (1080p at 60 frames per second) as either poor or bad. Conversely, for the lowest-quality video, users with higher gaze confidence provided feedback that was more closely aligned with the actual quality of the stimuli. Although this difference is evident but not statistically significant, it aligns with our expectations given the experimental design. The small area of interest on the mobile screen, the selection of  
Figure 5: Histogram of user gaze.  
Figure 6: Relative frequency of gaze based on %GoB and %PoW ratings.  
gaming-related stimuli, and the brief assessment duration effectively focused participants' visual attention within the calibrated area, as observed during the assessments.