research-article

A Price-per-attention Auction Scheme Using Mouse Cursor Information

Authors:

Ioannis Arapakis,

Luis A. LeivaAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Volume 38, Issue 2

Article No.: 13, Pages 1 - 30

https://doi.org/10.1145/3374210

Published: 27 January 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Payments in online ad auctions are typically derived from click-through rates, so that advertisers do not pay for ineffective ads. But advertisers often care about more than just clicks. That is, for example, if they aim to raise brand awareness or visibility. There is thus an opportunity to devise a more effective ad pricing paradigm, in which ads are paid only if they are actually noticed. This article contributes a novel auction format based on a pay-per-attention (PPA) scheme. We show that the PPA auction inherits the desirable properties (strategy-proofness and efficiency) as its pay-per-impression and pay-per-click counterparts, and that it also compares favourably in terms of revenues. To make the PPA format feasible, we also contribute a scalable diagnostic technology to predict user attention to ads in sponsored search using raw mouse cursor coordinates only, regardless of the page content and structure. We use the user attention predictions in numerical simulations to evaluate the PPA auction scheme. Our results show that, in relevant economic settings, the PPA revenues would be strictly higher than the existing auction payment schemes.

References

[1]

Gagan Aggarwal, Ashish Goel, and Rajeev Motwani. 2006. Truthful auctions for pricing search keywords. In Proceedings of the EC.

Digital Library

[2]

Ioannis Arapakis, Mounia Lalmas, B. Barla Cambazoglu, Mari-Carmen Marcos, and Joemon M. Jose. 2014. User engagement in online news: Under the scope of sentiment, interest, affect, and gaze. J. Assoc. Info. Sci. Technol. 65, 10 (2014).

[3]

Ioannis Arapakis, Mounia Lalmas, and George Valkanas. 2014. Understanding within-content engagement through pattern analysis of mouse gestures. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

Digital Library

[4]

Ioannis Arapakis and Luis A. Leiva. 2016. Predicting user engagement with direct displays using mouse cursor information. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

[5]

Ioannis Arapakis, Luis A. Leiva, and B. Barla Cambazoglu. 2015. Know your onions: Understanding the user experience with the knowledge module in web search. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

[6]

Ernesto Arroyo, Shawn Sullivan, and Ted Selker. 2006. CarCoach: A polite and effective driving coach. In Proceedings of the CHI EA.

Digital Library

[7]

Susan. Athey and Glenn Ellison. 2011. Position auctions with consumer search. Q. J. Econ. 126, 3 (2011).

[8]

Susan Athey and Denis Nekipelov. 2014. A structural model of sponsored search advertising auctions. Mimeo (2014).

[9]

Richard Atterer, Monika Wnuk, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2006. Knowing the user’s every move: User activity tracking for website usability evaluation and implicit interaction. In Proceedings of the WWW.

Digital Library

[10]

Lawrence M. Ausubel and Oleg Baranov. 2019. Core-selecting auctions with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-019-00691-3

[11]

Yoram Bachrach. 2010. Honor among thieves: Collusion in multi-unit auctions. Proceedings of the AAMAS (2010).

[12]

Yoram Bachrach, Sofia Ceppi, Ian A. Kash, Peter Key, and David Kurokawa. 2014. Optimising trade-offs among stakeholders in ad auctions. In Proceedings of the EC.

Digital Library

[13]

Nicola Barbieri, Fabrizio Silvestri, and Mounia Lalmas. 2016. Improving post-click user engagement on native ads via survival analysis. In Proceedings of the WWW.

Digital Library

[14]

Oswald Barral, Ilkka Kosunen, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Michiel M. Spapé, Manuel J. Eugster, Niklas Ravaja, Samuel Kaski, and Giulio Jacucci. 2016. Extracting relevance and affect information from physiological text annotation. User Model. User-Adap. 26, 5 (2016).

[15]

Thomas Blake, Chris Nosko, and Steven Tadelis. 2015. Consumer heterogeneity and paid search effectiveness: A large-scale field experiment. Econometrica 83, 1 (2015).

[16]

Michael Bohan and Alex Chaparro. 1998. Age-related differences in performance using a mouse and trackball. Hum. Factors 42, 2 (1998).

[17]

Tilman Borgers, Ingemar Cox, Martin Pesendorfer, and Vaclav Petricek. 2013. Equilibrium bids in sponsored search auctions: Theory and evidence. Amer. Econ. J.: Microeconomics 5, 4 (2013).

[18]

Brightfish, Profacts, and Lumen. 2018. From viewable to viewed: Using eye tracking to understand the reality of attention to advertising across media. White paper. Retrieved from https://effectiveviews.be/files/White_Paper_From_Viewable_to_viewed.pdf.

[19]

Y. Chen, Y. Liu, M. Zhang, and S. Ma. 2017. User satisfaction prediction with mouse movement information in heterogeneous search environment. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data. Eng. 29, 11 (2017).

Digital Library

[20]

Hana Choi, Carl F. Mela, Santiago Balseiro, and Adam Leary. 2018. Online display advertising markets: A literature review and future directions. Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 18-1.

[21]

Edward H. Clarke. 1971. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11 (1971).

[22]

Mark Claypool, Phong Le, Makoto Wased, and David Brown. 2001. Implicit interest indicators. In Proceedings of the IUI.

Digital Library

[23]

Francesco Decarolis, Maris Goldmanis, and Antonio Penta. 2018. Marketing agencies and collusive bidding in online ad auctions. Management Science (forthcoming).

[24]

Fernando Diaz, Ryen White, Georg Buscher, and Dan Liebling. 2013. Robust models of mouse movement on dynamic web search results pages. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

Digital Library

[25]

Abdigani Diriye, Ryen White, Georg Buscher, and Susan Dumais. 2012. Leaving so soon?: Understanding and predicting web search abandonment rationales. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

Digital Library

[26]

Benjamin Edelman, Michael Ostrovsky, and Michael Schwarz. 2007. Internet advertising and the generalized second-price auction: Selling billions of dollars worth of keywords. Amer. Econ. Rev. 97, 1 (2007).

[27]

Benjamin Edelman and Michael Schwarz. 2010. Optimal auction design and equilibrium selection in sponsored search auctions. Amer. Econ. Rev. 100, 2 (2010).

[28]

Henry A. Feild, James Allan, and Rosie Jones. 2010. Predicting searcher frustration. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[29]

Kenneth Fjell. 2009. Online advertising: Pay-per-view versus pay-per-click—A comment. Int. J. Res. Market. 8, 2--3 (2009).

[30]

Kristin Fridgeirsdottir and Sami Najafi-Asadolahi. 2018. Cost-per-impression pricing for display advertising. Oper. Res. 66, 3 (2018).

[31]

Joseph H. Goldberg, Mark J. Stimson, Marion Lewenstein, Neil Scott, and Anna M. Wichansky. 2002. Eye tracking in web search tasks: Design implications. In Proceedings of the ETRA.

[32]

Renato Gomes and Kane Sweeney. 2014. Bayes–Nash equilibria of the generalized second-price auction. Games Econ. Behav. 86 (2014).

[33]

Google. 2014. The Importance of Being Seen: Viewability Insights for Digital Marketers and Publishers. Technical Report.

[34]

Theodore Groves. 1973. Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41, 4 (1973).

[35]

Max Grusky, Jeiran Jahani, Josh Schwartz, Dan Valente, Yoav Artzi, and Mor Naaman. 2017. Modeling sub-document attention using viewport time. In Proceedings of the CHI.

Digital Library

[36]

Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2008. Exploring mouse movements for inferring query intent. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[37]

Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2010. Ready to buy or just browsing?: Detecting web searcher goals from interaction data. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[38]

Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2012. Beyond dwell time: Estimating document relevance from cursor movements and other post-click searcher behavior. In Proceedings of the WWW.

Digital Library

[39]

Qi Guo, Haojian Jin, Dmitry Lagun, Shuai Yuan, and Eugene Agichtein. 2013. Mining touch interaction data on mobile devices to predict web search result relevance. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[40]

Qi Guo, Dmitry Lagun, and Eugene Agichtein. 2012. Predicting web search success with fine-grained interaction data. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

Digital Library

[41]

Ken Hendricks, Robert Porter, and Guofu Tan. 2008. Bidding rings and the winner’s curse. RAND J. Econ. 39, 4 (2008).

[42]

Shang H. Hsu, Chien Chung Huang, Yang Hui Tsuang, and Jui Sheng Sun. 1999. Effects of age and gender on remote pointing performance and their design implications. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 23, 5 (1999).

[43]

Jian Hu, Hua-Jun Zeng, Hua Li, Cheng Niu, and Zheng Chen. 2007. Demographic prediction based on user’s browsing behavior. In Proceedings of the WWW.

Digital Library

[44]

Jeff Huang, Ryen White, and Georg Buscher. 2012. User see, user point: Gaze and cursor alignment in web search. In Proceedings of the CHI.

Digital Library

[45]

Jeff Huang, Ryen W. White, Georg Buscher, and Kuansan Wang. 2012. Improving searcher models using mouse cursor activity. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[46]

Jeff Huang, Ryen W. White, and Susan Dumais. 2011. No clicks, no problem: Using cursor movements to understand and improve search. In Proceedings of the CHI.

Digital Library

[47]

Sharethrough IPG. 2013. Native Ads vs Banner Ads: Native Ad Research from IPG 8 Sharethrough Reveals that In-Feed Beats Banners. Technical Report.

[48]

Giulio Jacucci, Oswald Barral, Pedram Daee, Markus Wenzel, Baris Serim, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Patrik Pluchino, Jonathan Freeman, Luciano Gamberini, Samuel Kaski, and Benjamin Blankertz. 2019. Integrating neurophysiologic relevance feedback in intent modeling for information retrieval. J. Assoc. Info. Sci. Technol. 70, 9 (2019).

[49]

Tiffany Jastrzembski, Neil Charness, Patricia Holley, and Jeffrey Feddon. 2003. Input devices for web browsing: Age and hand effects. Universal Access Info. 4 (2003).

[50]

Philippe Jehiel and Laurent Lamy. 2015. On discrimination in auctions with endogenous entry. Amer. Econ. Rev. 105 (2015).

[51]

Zilong Jiang, Shu Gao, and Wei Dai. 2016. Research on CTR prediction for contextual advertising based on deep architecture model. Control Eng. Appl. Info. 18 (2016).

[52]

S.M. Johnson, P. Smith, and S. Tucker. 1982. Response format of the job descriptive index: Assessment of reliability and validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 4 (1982).

[53]

Alexander Kolesnikov, Yury Logachev, and Valeriy Topinskiy. 2012. Predicting CTR of new ads via click prediction. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

Digital Library

[54]

Dmitry Lagun, Mikhail Ageev, Qi Guo, and Eugene Agichtein. 2014. Discovering common motifs in cursor movement data for improving web search. In Proceedings of the WSDM.

Digital Library

[55]

Dmitry Lagun and Eugene Agichtein. 2015. Inferring searcher attention by jointly modeling user interactions and content salience. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[56]

Dmitry Lagun, Chih-Hung Hsieh, Dale Webster, and Vidhya Navalpakkam. 2014. Toward better measurement of attention and satisfaction in mobile search. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[57]

Dmitry Lagun, Donal McMahon, and Vidhya Navalpakkam. 2016. Understanding mobile searcher attention with rich ad formats. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

Digital Library

[58]

Preston Lahaie and Sébastien McAfee. 2011. Efficient ranking in sponsored search auctions. In Proceedings of the WINE.

[59]

Luis A. Leiva. 2011. Restyling website design via touch-based interactions. In Proceedings of the MobileHCI.

Digital Library

[60]

Luis A. Leiva and Jeff Huang. 2015. Building a better mousetrap: Compressing mouse cursor activity for web analytics. Info. Process. Manag. 51, 2 (2015).

[61]

Luis A. Leiva and Roberto Vivó. 2013. Web browsing behavior analysis and interactive hypervideo. ACM Trans. Web 7, 4 (2013).

Digital Library

[62]

Yixuan Li, Pingmei Xu, Dmitry Lagun, and Vidhya Navalpakkam. 2017. Toward measuring and inferring user interest from gaze. In Proceedings of the WWW Companion.

Digital Library

[63]

Tomas Lindberg, Risto Näsänen, and Kiti Müller. 2006. How age affects the speed of perception of computer icons. Displays 27, 4 (2006).

[64]

Yiqun Liu, Ye Chen, Jinhui Tang, Jiashen Sun, Min Zhang, Shaoping Ma, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Different users, different opinions: Predicting search satisfaction with mouse movement information. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[65]

Yiqun Liu, Chao Wang, Ke Zhou, Jianyun Nie, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2014. From skimming to reading: A two-stage examination model for web search. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

Digital Library

[66]

George J Mailath and Peter Zemsky. 1991. Collusion in second price auctions with heterogeneous bidders. Games Econ. Behav. 3, 4 (1991).

[67]

Andrea Mangani. 2004. Online advertising: Pay-per-view versus pay-per-click. Int. J. Res. Market. 2, 4 (2004).

[68]

Yishay Mansour, S. Muthukrishnan, and Noam Nisan. 2012. Doubleclick ad exchange auction. CoRR abs/1204.0535 (2012).

[69]

Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Noriko Kando, Zexue He, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2018. A two-stage model for user’s examination behavior in mobile search. In Proceedings of the CHIIR.

Digital Library

[70]

Jiaxin Mao, Cheng Luo, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2018. Constructing click models for mobile search. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[71]

Mari-Carmen Marcos, Ferran Gavin, and Ioannis Arapakis. 2015. Effect of snippets on user experience in web search. In Proceedings of the INTERACCION.

Digital Library

[72]

Daniel Martín-Albo, Luis A. Leiva, Jeff Huang, and Réjean Plamondon. 2016. Strokes of insight: User intent detection and kinematic compression of mouse cursor trails. Info. Process. Manag. 52, 6 (2016).

[73]

Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44, 1 (2012).

[74]

Randolph McAfee and John McMillan. 1992. Bidding rings. Amer. Econ. Rev. 82, 3 (1992).

[75]

L. McCay-Peet, M. Lalmas, and V. Navalpakkam. 2012. On saliency, affect and focused attention. In Proceedings of the CHI.

[76]

Paul Milgrom and Joshua Mollner. 2018. Equilibrium selection in auctions and high stakes games. Econometrica 86, 1 (2018).

[77]

Roger B. Myerson. 1981. Optimal auction design. Math. Oper. Res. 6, 1 (1981).

[78]

Sami Najafi-Asadolahi and Kristin Fridgeirsdottir. 2014. Cost-per-click pricing for display advertising. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manage. 16, 4 (2014).

[79]

Abhirup Nath, Shibnath Mukherjee, Prateek Jain, Navin Goyal, and Srivatsan Laxman. 2013. Ad impression forecasting for sponsored search. In Proceedings of the WWW.

Digital Library

[80]

Vidhya Navalpakkam, LaDawn Jentzsch, Rory Sayres, Sujith Ravi, Amr Ahmed, and Alex Smola. 2013. Measurement and modeling of eye-mouse behavior in the presence of nonlinear page layouts. In Proceedings of the WWWW.

Digital Library

[81]

Michael Ostrovsky and Michael Schwarz. 2011. Reserve prices in internet advertising auctions: A field experiment. In Proceedings of the EC.

Digital Library

[82]

Justin W. Owens, Barbara S. Chaparro, and Evan M. Palmer. 2011. Text advertising blindness: The new banner blindness?J. Usabil. Stud. 6, 3 (2011).

[83]

Renato Paes Leme and Éva Tardos. 2010. Pure and Bayes–Nash price of anarchy for generalized second price auction. In Proceedings of the FOCS.

[84]

Avar Pentel. 2017. Predicting age and gender by keystroke dynamics and mouse patterns. In Proceedings of the Adj. UMAP.

Digital Library

[85]

Ben Roberts, Dinan Gunawardena, Ian A. Kash, and Peter Key. 2016. Ranking and tradeoffs in sponsored search auctions. ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. 4, 3 (2016).

Digital Library

[86]

R. Rosenholtz, Y. Li, J. Mansfield, and Z. Jin. 2005. Feature congestion: A measure of display clutter. In Proceedings of the CHI.

[87]

Bracha Shapira, Meirav Taieb-Maimon, and Anny Moskowitz. 2006. Study of the usefulness of known and new implicit indicators and their optimal combination for accurate inference of users interests. In Proceedings of the SAC.

Digital Library

[88]

Michael W. Smith, Joseph Sharit, and Sara J. Czaja. 1999. Aging, motor control, and the performance of computer mouse tasks. Hum. Factors 41, 3 (1999).

[89]

Maximilian Speicher, Andreas Both, and Martin Gaedke. 2013. TellMyRelevance&excl;: Predicting the relevance of web search results from cursor interactions. In Proceedings of the CIKM.

[90]

David R.M. Thompson and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2013. Revenue optimization in the generalized second-price auction. In Proceedings of the EC.

[91]

Hal R. Varian. 2007. Position auctions. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 25, 6 (2007).

[92]

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the NIPS.

[93]

William Vickrey. 1961. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finance 16, 1 (1961).

[94]

Neff Walker, David A. Philbin, and Arthur D. Fisk. 1997. Age-related differences in movement control: Adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 52, 1 (1997).

[95]

Xiaochuan Wang, Ning Su, Zexue He, Yiqun Liu, and Shaoping Ma. 2018. A large-scale study of mobile search examination behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGIR.

Digital Library

[96]

T. Yamauchi and C. Bowman. 2014. Mining cursor motions to find the gender, experience, and feelings of computer users. In Proceedings of the ICDM.

[97]

Shuangfei Zhai, Keng-hao Chang, Ruofei Zhang, and Zhongfei Mark Zhang. 2016. DeepIntent: Learning attentions for online advertising with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the KDD.

Digital Library

Cited By

Zhang LZhang XWang YLi XDong ZXu J(2025)Adapting Constrained Markov Decision Process for OCPC Bidding with Delayed ConversionsACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/370642043:2(1-29)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706420
Weber LLeiva L(2025)AutoML for shape-writing biometricsNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-025-10983-3Online publication date: 1-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-025-10983-3
Pandjaitan AStrecker JBektas KMayer S(2024)AuctentionAR - Auctioning Off Visual Attention in Mixed RealityExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650941(1-6)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650941
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A Price-per-attention Auction Scheme Using Mouse Cursor Information
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Modeling and simulation
2. Information systems
  1. Information retrieval
    1. Users and interactive retrieval
      1. Search interfaces
  2. World Wide Web
    1. Online advertising
      1. Sponsored search advertising

Recommendations

Repeated Budgeted Second Price Ad Auction

Our main goal is to abstract existing repeated sponsored search ad auction mechanisms which incorporate budgets, and study their equilibrium and dynamics. Our abstraction has multiple agents bidding repeatedly for multiple identical items (such as ...
On the design of sponsored keyword advertising slot auctions: An analysis of a generalized second-price auction approach

The generalized second-priceauction mechanism is commonly used in research in the context of keyword advertising slot auctioning. The mechanism sets the clearing prices for advertising slots on a search engine's Web pages such that the advertiser will ...
Pricing Rule in a Clock Auction

We analyze a discrete clock auction with lowest-accepted-bid (LAB) pricing and provisional winners, as adopted by India for its 3G spectrum auction. In a perfect Bayesian equilibrium, the provisional winner shades her bid, whereas provisional losers do ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Information Systems

ACM Transactions on Information Systems Volume 38, Issue 2

April 2020

266 pages

ISSN:1046-8188

EISSN:1558-2868

DOI:10.1145/3379433

Editor:
Maarten de Rijke
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

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 profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 January 2020

Accepted: 01 November 2019

Revised: 01 October 2019

Received: 01 May 2019

Published in TOIS Volume 38, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

Academy of Finland (BAD project)

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
354
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)23
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 30 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhang LZhang XWang YLi XDong ZXu J(2025)Adapting Constrained Markov Decision Process for OCPC Bidding with Delayed ConversionsACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/370642043:2(1-29)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706420
Weber LLeiva L(2025)AutoML for shape-writing biometricsNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-025-10983-3Online publication date: 1-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-025-10983-3
Pandjaitan AStrecker JBektas KMayer S(2024)AuctentionAR - Auctioning Off Visual Attention in Mixed RealityExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650941(1-6)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650941
Lemarquis DYilma BLeiva L(2023)What can a swiped word tell us more? Demographic and behavioral correlates from shape-writing text entryNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-023-08559-035:21(15531-15548)Online publication date: 13-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-08559-0
Leiva LArapakis IIordanou CScholer FThomas PElsweiler DJoho HKando NSmith C(2021)My Mouse, My RulesProceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3406522.3446011(51-61)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3406522.3446011
Brückner LArapakis ILeiva LDiaz FShah CSuel TCastells PJones RSakai T(2021)When Choice Happens: A Systematic Examination of Mouse Movement Length for Decision Making in Web SearchProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3404835.3463055(2318-2322)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3404835.3463055
Leiva LArapakis I(2020)The Attentive Cursor DatasetFrontiers in Human Neuroscience10.3389/fnhum.2020.56566414Online publication date: 16-Nov-2020
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.565664

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents