The percentile-matching technique for synthetic eye tracking signal degradation: A biometric case study

Henry Griffith; Dmytro Katrychuk; Mehedi H. Raju; Samantha Aziz; Dillon J. Lohr; Oleg V. Komogortsev

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334605

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 25, 2024
16 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Elochukwu Ukwandu, Editor PONE-D-24-31041The percentile-matching technique for synthetic eye tracking signal degradation: a biometric case studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Katrychuk, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== This study demonstrates an improved model-based approach for synthetic degradation of pre-recorded eye movement signals. I reckon that the issue of eye tracking and like any other biometric are still contentious about there applications especially in end-user authentication due to varying laws and the tendencies of being lost and used for malicious activities. The addition to knowledge of this study is strong on the improvement on data degradation using synthetic data for a case study. All the same, there was no information on subjecting this outcome to long-term/simulated integrity test. This work to the best of my knowledge followed known scientific rigours in carrying out the experiment and result presentation and reporting. What I found largely missing or confused is why the authors used a modified model as benchmark, when it has not ben tested and proven. Also, there is the need to comparatively compare the result with existing literature to provide through empirical evidence the addition to knowledge and contributions to the scientific community. Doing this will go a long way in situating the work in comparison with existing works, thus helping to further the research. Nevertheless, I commend the authors for their efforts. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Elochukwu Ukwandu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Authors Samantha Aziz and Dillon Lohr are recipients of National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1840989 and DGE-1144466, respectively." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "Authors Samantha Aziz and Dillon Lohr are recipients of National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1840989 and DGE-1144466, respectively. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. " We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "Authors Samantha Aziz and Dillon Lohr are recipients of National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1840989 and DGE-1144466, respectively." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: The percentile-matching technique for synthetic eye tracking signal degradation: a biometric case study This study demonstrates an improved model-based approach for synthetic degradation of pre-recorded eye movement signals. I reckon that the issue of eye tracking and like any other biometric are still contentious about there applications especially in end-user authentication due to varying laws and the tendencies of being lost and used for malicious activities. The addition to knowledge of this study range from the improvement on data degradation using synthetic data for a case study. All the same, there was no information on subjecting this outcome to long-term/simulated integrity test. This work to the best of my knowledge followed known scientific rigours in carrying out the experiment and result presentation and reporting. What I found largely missing or confused is why the authors used a modified model as benchmark, when it has not ben tested and proven to be trusted. Also, there is the need to comparatively compare the results with existing literature to provide through empirical evidence the addition to knowledge and contributions to the scientific community. Doing this help to situate the work properly for further studies by an interested party. Nevertheless, I commend the authors on their efforts. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334605.r001
Revision 1
20 Feb 2025 Author Response This study demonstrates an improved model-based approach for synthetic degradation of pre-recorded eye movement signals. I reckon that the issue of eye tracking and like any other biometric are still contentious about there applications especially in end-user authentication due to varying laws and the tendencies of being lost and used for malicious activities. > Thank you. The addition to knowledge of this study range from the improvement on data degradation using synthetic data for a case study. All the same, there was no information on subjecting this outcome to long-term/simulated integrity test. This work to the best of my knowledge followed known scientific rigours in carrying out the experiment and result presentation and reporting. > Thank you. What I found largely missing or confused is why the authors used a modified model as benchmark, when it has not been tested and proven to be trusted. > The mechanistic data degradation model described in the paper titled – “Using machine learning to detect events in eye-tracking data” was implemented herein for initial benchmarking purposes. While it was attempted to replicate the implementation as closely as possible to the procedure described in the original manuscript, some modifications were made to enhance performance for the current application as described in the section- Benchmark transformation model in the manuscript. Zemblys R, Niehorster DC, Komogortsev O, Holmqvist K. Using machine learning to detect events in eye-tracking data. Behavior research methods. 2018;50(1):160–181. Also, there is the need to comparatively compare the results with existing literature to provide through empirical evidence the addition to knowledge and contributions to the scientific community. Doing this help to situate the work properly for further studies by an interested party. Nevertheless, I commend the authors on their efforts. > In table 1 of the manuscript, we compare the results in terms of three metrics. Also In figure 4 we compare the results between baseline and modified versions from the biometric perspective. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal_Letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334605.r002
21 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Elochukwu Ukwandu, Editor PONE-D-24-31041R1The percentile-matching technique for synthetic eye tracking signal degradation: a biometric case studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Katrychuk, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Minor Revision required. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 05 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Elochukwu Ukwandu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Most comments have been addressed, I appreciate the authors effort. I recommend for acceptance to this point. Reviewer #2: 1. The clarity of the figures in the manuscript is insufficient, so vector figures are recommended. 2. The structure of the manuscript is somewhat confusing. Should the data set be described in the experimental section? 3. Some related works on target tracking tasks should be discussed in this paper: --Self-supervised deep correlation tracking, --Aligned Spatial-Temporal Memory Network for Thermal Infrared Target Tracking, --Active learning for deep tracking… 4. Experiment validations are not convincing. Some additional experiments need to be conducted to make its conclusion stronger. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334605.r003
Revision 2
17 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Editor, Please find the response to each of the comments below: Reviewer #2: 1. The clarity of the figures in the manuscript is insufficient, so vector figures are recommended. Thank you for pointing this out. We have replaced figures with high-resolution vector (in PDF/SVG format) to enhance clarity and ensure better readability. 2. The structure of the manuscript is somewhat confusing. Should the data set be described in the experimental section? Thank you for your comments. We would like to clarify that our manuscript does not contain a section explicitly titled "Experimental Section." Currently, the dataset details are provided within the Methods section, which we intended to include both methodological and experimental setup information. If the reviewer recommends separating this into a distinct "Experimental" section for clarity, we are happy to make that structural adjustment. We would appreciate further guidance on how the reviewer would prefer this information to be organized. 3. Some related works on target tracking tasks should be discussed in this paper: --Self-supervised deep correlation tracking, --Aligned Spatial-Temporal Memory Network for Thermal Infrared Target Tracking, --Active learning for deep tracking… Thank you for these suggestions. While these works represent important advancements in generic object tracking under RGB or thermal modalities, they differ considerably from the focus of our work. 4. Experiment validations are not convincing. Some additional experiments need to be conducted to make its conclusion stronger. We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the strength of the experimental validation. To better address this point and ensure our revisions align with the reviewer’s expectations, we would greatly value any specific suggestions or directions regarding the types of additional experiments that would most effectively strengthen our conclusions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal_Letter_V2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334605.r004
30 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Elochukwu Ukwandu, Editor `The percentile-matching technique for synthetic eye tracking signal degradation: a biometric case study PONE-D-24-31041R2 Dear Dr. Katrychuk, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Elochukwu Ukwandu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The author's research direction is different from mine. I'm not an expert in the field of this paper and I refuse to comment on this manuscript. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334605.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Elochukwu Ukwandu, Editor PONE-D-24-31041R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Katrychuk, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Elochukwu Ukwandu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334605.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .