Unsupervised Segmentation of Action Segments in
Egocentric Videos using Gaze
Hipiny, H. Ujir, J.L. Minoi, S.F. Samson Juan and M.A.
Khairuddin
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Abstract—Unsupervised segmentation of action segments in
egocentric videos is a desirable feature in tasks such as activity
recognition and content-based video retrieval. Reducing the
search space into a finite set of action segments facilitates a faster
and less noisy matching. However, there exist a substantial gap in
machine’s understanding of natural temporal cuts during a
continuous human activity. This work reports on a novel gazebased approach for segmenting action segments in videos captured
using an egocentric camera. Gaze is used to locate the region-ofinterest inside a frame. By tracking two simple motion-based
parameters inside successive regions-of-interest, we discover a
finite set of temporal cuts. We present several results using
combinations (of the two parameters) on a dataset, i.e.,
BRISGAZE-ACTIONS. The dataset contains egocentric videos
depicting several daily-living activities. The quality of the
temporal cuts is further improved by implementing two entropy
measures.
Keywords—Unsupervised temporal segmentation; time series
clustering; human motion analysis; gaze and egocentric activity.

I. INTRODUCTION
Unsupervised segmentation of action segments is a useful
feature to have in activity recognition and content-based video
retrieval. Both tasks involve the matching of discovered
temporal segments inside a video to a learned action/scene.
Thus, it is imperative for each discovered temporal segment to
be quasi-identical with its corresponding learned action/scene,
in term of the underlying structure of data.
Human activities naturally consist of non-mutually exclusive
events. For example, a typical list of events when drinking
coffee would consist of the following verb-object pairs: "Lookat cup", "Grab cup", "Raise cup", "Drink coffee", and "Place
cup". These events, or action segments, may overlapped,
abandoned prematurely, or paused for another action to occur,
only to be resumed later. A person may continue drinking coffee
whilst placing the cup onto a desk (overlapping events),
initiating the motion of the active hand to grab the cup only to
end it abruptly (abandoned prematurely), and pausing
momentarily to answer a phone call (paused for another action,
only to be resumed later). Nevertheless, the method presented in
this work considers action segments as mutually exclusive
events to simplify the problem.

M.S. Sunar
Faculty of Computing
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

Fig. 1. A visual explanation of our temporal segmentation method, taken from
[10]. Using a 9-frame sliding window (the above example uses n 3 frames
for visual clarity), we track two motion-based parameters, i.e., fpr and sdm,
inside 9 successive frames (i.e., Ik-4, Ik-3, Ik-2, Ik-1, Ik, Ik+1, Ik+2, Ik+3, Ik+4). For each
parameter, the 9 individual values are sorted and the median is chosen as the
representative value for frame k.

Unsupervised segmentation and learning of motion
primitives were addressed in both multimedia [25], [7], [15], and
computer vision [34], [1], [12], [38] communities. A more recent
work by Krüger et al. [19] considers action as a series of smaller,
atomic motion primitives. These motion primitives are not
required to have any semantic meaning, only for each to have a
distinctive motion data. This finer representation allows
overlapping events to be detected separately. However, results
from [19] were obtained using non-egocentric datasets
(stationary sensors). Our work is more similar to [16] and [32],
as both evaluated their methods against egocentric datasets.
In supervised approaches, action segments are segmented a
priori before further operations. Manual segmentation is
performed with the understanding of natural segments inside an
activity. In unsupervised approaches, temporal cuts are found by
analysing cues inside the video without any prior knowledge of
models. Thus, several assumptions must be made regarding the
underlying structure of data at temporal cut points to
differentiate them from the rest of the frames.
According to [2], [22], [13] and [9], gaze is closely related
to a person’s immediate cognitive goal. Ballard et al. [2]
presented evidences of a tight-linkage in time between a

person’s gaze fixations and his or her actions. A person
performing a task tend to acquire a specific visual information,
just at the point it is required. These findings motivated us into
using Gaze region, i.e., region-of interest containing a gaze
fixation, to prime for clues for temporal cuts. We define a Gaze
region as a 56 × 56 window centered around the gaze fixation
point.
We observed that Gaze regions are usually registered when
the egocentric camera is relatively stationary. A large camera
motion induces saccades as the eyes move in a rapid fashion
from a fixation point to another. Since no gaze fixation is
registered during a saccade [6], a majority of the background
features found inside a Gaze region would experience minimal
motion (as induced by the camera). As for the foreground
features (i.e., belonging to the active hand(s) and the currentlymanipulated object), the translation, rotation and scaling would
typically be intense. Based on this observation, we demonstrate
the use of two simple parameters derived from motion features
tracked across successive Gaze regions, i.e., Foreground Pixel
Ratio (
), and Standard Deviation of Motions (
), for
discovering temporal cuts. A visual explanation of our method
is provided in Figure 1.
II. PREVIOUS WORK
A. Autonomous Segmentation of Action Segments
1) Supervised: Supervised segmentation of motion data can
either be performed using known poses [4], [8], [26], known
templates [27], [29], [21], [35] and motion synthesis [18], [17].
Beaudoin et al. [4] generates a motion-motif graph from a
sequence of motion capture (Mo-cap) data by clustering similar
motions together with their encompassing motion graph. Chew
et al. [8] uses fuzzy clustering to compress motion data based on
data similarity within the anatomy structure of a virtual character
model and the temporal coherence within the motion data itself.
López-Méndez et al. [26] generates pose clusters associated with
unlabeled actions. Lv et al. [27] learns discriminative templates
from manually-labelled segments using HMMs and AdaBoost.
Müller et al. [29] introduces geometric-based templates to
perform adaptive matching of unknown segments. In [21] and
[35], segmentation using limited exemplars is made possible by
learning the intrinsic regularities of the Mo-cap data. In [18],
motion graphs are constructed from clips of Mo-cap data. In
[17], motion elements are queried from large datasets, and then
blended according to pre-defined user constraints.
2) Unsupervised: Earlier works on unsupervised
segmentation of human motion data focused on videos captured
using a stationary sensor. Barbicˇ et al. [3] introduces a PCAbased method to partition motion sequences into individual
segments. By temporally-tracking the quality of local PCA
models, new models are defined when the data variance in
existing PCA models exceeds a threshold. In [14], a combination
of PCA and linear regression is used to derive a metric for
segmenting unknown motion sequences. Krüger et al. [19]
segments motion data by aligning segregated feature
trajectories, before clustering them into groups based on a
similarity measure. The final grouping does not necessarily need
to have any semantic meaning.

Similar to our work, Kitani et al. [16] and Poleg et al. [32]
deal with the unsupervised segmentation of egocentric videos.
Both are based on tracking discontinuities of optical flow-based
features. Kitani et al. [16] proposes a novel method for the
unsupervised learning of ego-actions. Successive video frames
with identical camera motion are grouped together as a single
ego-action, each represented as a simple histogram based on the
optical flow direction/magnitude and frequency. The use of
camera motion’s discontinuities to determine a temporal cut is
possible since their dataset specifically contains extreme
egocentric sport videos, i.e., outdoor activities that involve
sudden and large on-body camera motions. Our dataset contains
daily-living activities, which involve a lot subtler camera
motions. Poleg et al. [32] uses displacement vectors, similar to
optical flows, for long-term temporal segmentation. Unlike ours,
the dataset used in [32] contains activities of relatively simple
ego-motion, such as walking and wheeling.
B. Gaze
Multiple studies [23], [22], [24], [30], [9] from Vision
research had presented strong evidences linking gaze and
activity. Yarbus [37] made an observation that “seeing” is linked
to the cognitive goals of the observer. In [24], a subject’s gaze
was recorded during several kitchen-based activities. It was
reported that 80% of the subject’s gaze fixations fell on taskrelevant objects. Also, gaze fixations are found to be tightlylinked in time to the progress of a task. Ballard et al. [2]
introduces the term “Just-in-Time” to refer to this very strategy
of acquiring specific visual clue just at the moment it is required
in the task. This characteristic was also observed by Turano et
al. [36].
TABLE I.

THE BRISGAZE-ACTIONS DATASET

Activity

Learned actions

Prepare to
watch a
DVD

“grab-dvd-case”, “open-DVD-case”, “take-out-DVD”,
“insert-DVD-into-slot”, “grab-headphones/plug”,
“plug-into-jack”, and “press-key-combo”.
“grab-pan”, “fill-pan-with-tap-water”, “place-pan-onhob”, “put-in-noodle”, “switch-on/off-hob”,
and “pour-cooked-noodles-into-bowl”.
“fill-kettle”, “place-kettle”, “switch-on/off-hob”, “grabmug”, “open-tea-pack”, “take-out-and-put-tea-satchetinto-mug”, “grab/open-sugar-jar”, “scoop-sugar”,
“pour-kettle”, and “stir”.
“open-milk-bottle”, “grab/open-flask”, “pour-flask”,
“grab/open-milk-pack”, “scoop-milk-powder”, “screwon-teat”, and “shake-milk-bottle”.

Cook
noodles
Prepare a
cup of tea
Prepare a
bottle of
milk

III. DATASET
In our experiments, we used a dataset of egocentric videos,
i.e., BRISGAZE-ACTIONS, first introduced in [10]. The
dataset is actually a subset of the larger BRIS-GAZE dataset
[11], containing a reduced number of activities. The dataset
contains 72 egocentric videos of 4 daily-living activities. Each
activity was performed by 6 adult participants in 3 repetitions,
see Table I.
These activities were chosen because all are highly-structured
with weak constraints on actions. For example, action “Stir
teaspoon” can only realistically be performed in a couple of

ways; all requiring the mug to be vertical and the active hand
holding the teaspoon, stirring it whilst it is positioned inside the
mug. These weak constraints increase the likelihood of a
successful matching between action segments and the learned
actions.
To provide the ground truths, we manually segmented all
learned actions inside each egocentric video. Based on a
constant definition of the start and end of each learned action,
we labelled the respective frames. The ground truths are used to
evaluate our unsupervised segmentation results.

Fig. 2. The setup. All images sourced from [10].

Figure 2 shows the user setup during our experiments.
Participants wear an ASL Mobile Eye device [20].
IV. ENTROPY MEASURES
We employ two entropy measures to filter candidate frames.
The goal is to improve the quality of temporal cuts, making sure
that they closely resemble the natural temporal cuts of learned
actions.
A. Edge Ratio
Due to the arbitrary nature of gaze, some of the registered
Gaze regions turned out to be flat-textured. Occasionally,
participants glanced at the walls or on the desk surface for a
period of time. These fixations do not serve any cognitive
purposes therefore are not relevant to our task. We eliminate
these flat-textured Gaze regions by first obtaining the edge
image using Canny edge detector [5].

We employ a color histogram-based approach, as used in
[28], to detect the presence of human hand(s) inside a Gaze
region. This method suffices as we only need a crude estimate
of the skin area.
We populate a two-dimensional color histogram. A UV color
space is used to provide invariance to illumination changes by
manually sampling the UV values of each participant’s skin
pixels from sampled egocentric videos.

Fig. 3. Pixelwise skin classification results on selected Gaze regions. The Gaze
regions (left column), Ground truths (middle column), and pixel-wise
classification results (right column).

Given a pixel’s UV value,
, y , the conditional
| , of belonging to a learned action
is
probability,
determined as,
|

Thus, the scoring function, Υ,
Υ

∑

×

(3)

×

estimates the likelihood of human hand(s) to be found inside a
given Gaze region. Two positive skin classification results are
shown in Figure 3.

A threshold value of the edge ratio, ,
×

(2)

∑

V. OUR METHOD
(1)

is used to reject Gaze regions with minimal number of edges,
where the non-zero pixels,
, refers to the edge pixels’ count
(post-Canny). The gaze region has a width and height of 56
pixels.
B. Color Histogram-based Hand Detection
To further increase the quality of temporal cuts, we only
consider a candidate frame if the Gaze region contains human
hand(s). Since actions inside the dataset are defined as verbobject pairs, we assume each action must start and end with a
frame containing human hand(s). The verb-object pairing
implies that an action involves the manipulation of an object by
the participant’s hand(s). This requirement is not enforced on the
in-between frames due to the arbitrary nature of gaze.

Our method discovers temporal cuts inside a given
egocentric video by tracking two motion-based parameters,
and
using a 9-frame median window. The median value
and the 9-frame sliding window is an attempt to smooth out
errors due to noise.
A simple logical AND function, Ϝ
frame k,
Ϝ

1
0

∧

, determines a cut at
∧

∧Υ

(4)

The firstly discovered temporal cut is labeled as a start, the
second one is labeled as an end. The resulting block of
successive frames, encompassed by a start and an end frame, is
duly registered as the first action segment. We repeat this
process for the rest of the found temporal cuts, alternately
tagging them as a start or an end.
The rest of this section describes how we calculate the two
motion-based parameters:
and
.

A. Motion-based Parameters
1) Pre-processing: We start by obtaining the optical flow
image for frame k. Given a Gaussian-smoothed image of the
previous frame k+1, we determine the gradient image, , in ,
and direction,
⋆
⋆

(5)

1 0
1
1
2
1
2 0
2 and
0
0
0 .
1 0
1
1
2
1
Next, we compute the velocity image for frame, k, in and
direction,

where

(6)
(7)

where

is a smoothing constant.

Next, the optical flow magnitude,
, for frame k are estimated.
orientation, tan

, and

Fig. 5. Pre-processing outputs for two sample frames, each belonging to a
different activity: Prepare to watch a DVD (left) and Prepare a cup of tea (right).
The outputs are arranged as follows: the original frames (1st row), the
horizontal magnitude images (2nd row), the vertical magnitude images (3rd
row), and the visualised optical flows (4th row).

Foreground Pixel Ratio,

, is calculated as,

∑

(8)

×

Fig. 4. The orientation bins: I, II, III and IV.

Later, we populate an optical flow histogram for frame k
with pixel-wise orientations, using the corresponding magnitude
value as weightage. The four orientation bins are shown in
Figure 4. The first and second most-populated bins are declared
as the background motions. All pixels inside frame k are then
labelled as either background or foreground by comparing their
optical flow orientation against the two declared background
motions. At each frame, the total foreground pixels,
,
are estimated.
and the total background pixels,
2) Foreground Pixel Ratio: This parameter relates to the
discontinuities between two action segments. Gaze regions
belonging to a learned action are dominated by foreground
, i.e., pixels belonging to the active hand(s)
pixels,
or the manipulated object(s). For Gaze regions belonging to a
rest state, i.e., between two separate actions, the number of
foreground pixels should diminish greatly. This is in agreement
with our definition of learned actions as a verb-object pair.

3) Standard Deviation of Motions: This parameter relates to
the high variance of motions typically observed inside Gaze
regions belonging to a learned action. Motions are more varied,
in both orientation and magnitude, due to the presence of active
hand(s) and manipulated object(s). Motions inside Gaze regions
belonging to a rest state are typically more subdued.
Standard Deviation of Motions,
∑

∑

, is calculated as,
⁄

(9)
where Θ

refers to the –th orientation bin’s value.
VI. EXPERIMENTS & RESULTS

We report on a series of experiments to show the
effectiveness of our proposed method. We tested several
combinations of
and
against the ground truth data of
learned actions from the BRISGAZE-ACTIONS dataset [10].
For each combination, we produced a set of temporal cuts for
each egocentric video using Equation 4. The temporal cuts are
then used to generate action segments.

To measure the segmentation accuracy, we manually
, where
0, … , , that are
obtained action segment(s),
aligned to each ground truth segment,
. An action segment is
aligned to a ground truth segment if it shares at least 50% of its
frames with the ground truth segment’s. Although we are
ignoring the discovered action segments during rest states, we
argue that these segments are easily diminishable during
matching later as their underlying structure of data should be
markedly different from the learned segments’.
We then measure,
(a)
∑

∩

∑

∪

(10)

and accept the alignment as a True Positive,
, if
0.5, or a False Positive,
, otherwise. An
unpaired ground truth is counted as a False Negative,
. We
repeat this process for all ground truth segments inside all
egocentric videos.
A. Recall vs. Precision
⁄
Recall,
, is the fraction of retrieved ground
truths and Precision, ⁄
, is the fraction of retrieved
ground truths that are usable, i.e., where
0.5.

(b)
Fig. 7. Sample temporal segmentation result for activity a) "Prepare a cup of
tea" and b) “Prepare to watch a DVD”, both obtained using the optimal
combination in Figure 6. We included both Ground truth data (top row) and
action segments (bottom row).

Parameter
requires a weaker threshold value of 0.10.
Not all actions involve large and varied motions of the active
hand(s) and the manipulated object(s). For example, action
"Press key combo" in activity "Prepare to watch a DVD" only
involve a small motion of the subject’s finger(s) whilst the palm
and the manipulated object, i.e., the keyboard, remain stationary.
Consequently, the resulting Gaze regions exhibit a low standard
deviation of motions.
Parameter Υ also require a weaker threshold value of 0.10.
For some actions, the corresponding Gaze regions contain
minimal skin pixels. On some cases, only a small portion of the
subject’s fingers are visible inside the Gaze region. Setting the
threshold to a higher value will result to these good Gaze regions
to be erroneously discarded.
Fig. 6. Recall vs. Precision, using a fixed value of 0.05. The rest of the
parameters, i.e.,
,
and Υ are varied from 0.10 to 0.90. For visual clarity,
only the top 24 combinations are shown here.

In Figure 6, the optimal combination is
0.30,
0.10, and Υ 0.10. Using this combination, the recall rate is
∙
0.67, precision rate is 0.74 and an F-measure, 2 ∙
,
of 0.70.
Parameter
requires a relatively higher threshold value of
0.30 due to the high number of misclassifications when tagging
foreground pixels. This is as expected since background
disambiguation of egocentric videos is a non-trivial task due the
moving camera [33]. A large camera motion may introduce an
out-of-plane transformation to certain background features,
causing them to be erroneously tagged as foreground.

7.

Selected temporal segmentation results are shown in Figure

VII. CONCLUSIONS
Our method, with an average F-measure performance of
0.70, compares favorably to Kitani et al.’s, which obtained an
average F-measure performance of 0.72 for their PARK
sequence [16]. Poleg et al. [32] uses a different performance
measure hence a direct comparison is not possible.
As evidenced by both temporal segmentation results shown
in Figure 7, our proposed method managed to obtain a
reasonably good segmentation output. The combination of two
motion-based parameters and two entropy measures works well
in discovering temporal cuts that reasonably matched the natural
cuts, at the cost of over-segmentation.

The over-segmentation problem can be solved by
implementing a similar coarse-to-fine representation (i.e.,
temporal pyramids) to [31], in which an optimal cluster
containing over-segmented segments can be partially matched
to a learned action. Matching of over-segmented segments can
be done using a modular voting approach in [39], [40], [41] and
[42], whereby a majority vote is used to determine the bestmatching learned action to the optimal cluster of segments.
As for false action segments found at rest states, they are
easily diminishable during matching later as the underlying
structure of data should be markedly different from the learned
segments’.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Malaysian Ministry of
Education through the following RU-RACE grant:
RACE/c(2)/1253/2015(09).
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]

[4]

[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]

[9]
[10]
[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]
[16]

R. Araujo and M.S. Kamel. Semi-supervised kernel-based temporal
clustering. In Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2014 13th
International Conference on, pages 123–128. IEEE, 2014.
D.H. Ballard, M.M. Hayhoe, and J.B. Pelz. Memory representations in
natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1):66–80, 1995.
J. Barbicˇ, A. Safonova, J.Y. Pan, C. Faloutsos, J.K. Hodgins, and N.S.
Pollard. Segmenting motion capture data into distinct behaviors. In
Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2004, pages 185–194. Canadian
Human-Computer Communications Society, 2004.
P. Beaudoin, S. Coros, M. van de Panne, and P. Poulin. Motion-motif
graphs. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics
Symposium on Computer Animation, pages 117–126.
J. Canny. A computational approach to edge detection. Pattern Analysis
and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, (6):679–698, 1986.
B. Cassin and S.A.B. Solomon. Dictionary of eye terminology. Wiley
Online Library, 1990.
Y.M. Chen, I.V. Bajic, and P. Saeedi. Moving region segmentation from
compressed video using global motion estimation and markov random
fields. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 13(3):421– 431, 2011.
B.S. Chew, L.P. Chau, and K.H. Yap. A fuzzy clustering algorithm for
virtual character animation representation. IEEE Transactions on
Multimedia, 13(1):40–49, 2011.
M. Hayhoe and D. Ballard. Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends
in cognitive sciences, 9(4):188–194, 2005.
I. Hipiny. Egocentric activity recognition using gaze. PhD thesis,
University of Bristol, 2013.
I. Hipiny and W. Mayol-Cuevas. Recognising egocentric activities from
gaze regions with multiple-voting bag of words. Technical Report CSTR12-003, University of Bristol, August 2012.
M. Hoai, Z.Z. Lan, and F. De la Torre. Joint segmentation and
classification of human actions in video. In Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR), 2011 IEEE Conference on, pages 3265–3272.
IEEE, 2011.
R.S. Johansson, G. Westling, A. Bäckström, and J.R. Flanagan. Eye–hand
coordination in object manipulation. the Journal of Neuroscience,
21(17):6917–6932, 2001.
S. Jones and L. Shao. Linear regression motion analysis for unsupervised
temporal segmentation of human actions. In Applications of Computer
Vision (WACV), 2014 IEEE Winter Conference on, pages 816–822.
IEEE, 2014.
H. Kadu and C.C. Jay Kuo. Automatic human mocap data classification.
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 16(8):2191–2202, 2014.
K.M. Kitani, T. Okabe, Y. Sato, and A. Sugimoto. Fast unsupervised egoaction learning for first-person sports videos. In CVPR 2011.

[17] L. Kovar and M. Gleicher. Automated extraction and parameterization of
motions in large data sets. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG),
volume 23, pages 559–568. ACM, 2004.
[18] L. Kovar, M. Gleicher, and F. Pighin. Motion graphs. In ACM
transactions on graphics (TOG), volume 21, pages 473–482. ACM, 2002.
[19] B. Kruger, A. Vogele, T. Willig, A. Yao, R. Klein, and A. Weber.
Efficient unsupervised temporal segmentation of motion data. IEEE
Transactions on Multimedia, 2016.
[20] Applied Science Laboratories. Asl mobile eye. http://www.
asleyetracking.com/Site/, 2013. [Online; accessed 10-May-2013].
[21] R. Lan and H.J. Sun. Automated human motion segmentation via motion
regularities. The Visual Computer, 31(1):35–53, 2015.
[22] M. Land, N. Mennie, J. Rusted, et al. The roles of vision and eye
movements in the control of activities of daily living. PERCEPTIONLONDON-, 28(11):1311–1328, 1999.
[23] M. Land, D.N. Lee, et al. Where we look when we steer. Nature,
369(6483):742–744, 1994.
[24] M. Land and M. Hayhoe. In what ways do eye movements contribute to
everyday activities? Vision research, 41(25):3559–3565, 2001.
[25] C. Li, S.Q. Zheng, and B. Prabhakaran. Segmentation and recognition of
motion streams by similarity search. ACM Transactions on Multimedia
Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 3(3):16, 2007.
[26] A. López-Méndez, J. Gall, J.R. Casas, and L.J. Van Gool. Metric learning
from poses for temporal clustering of human motion. In BMVC 2012.
[27] F. Lv and R. Nevatia. Recognition and segmentation of 3D human action
using HMM and multi-class adaboost. In ECCV 2006.
[28] W. Mayol-Cuevas and D.W. Murray. Wearable hand activity recognition
for event summarization. In International Symposium on Wearable
Computers. IEEE Computer Society, October 2005.
[29] M. Müller, T. Röder, and M. Clausen. Efficient content- based retrieval
of motion capture data. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), volume
24, pages 677–685. ACM, 2005.
[30] J.B. Pelz and R. Canosa. Oculomotor behavior and perceptual strategies
in complex tasks. Vision research, 41(25):3587–3596, 2001.
[31] H. Pirsiavash and D. Ramanan. Detecting activities of daily living in firstperson camera views. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(CVPR), 2012 IEEE Conference on, pages 2847–2854. IEEE, 2012.
[32] Y. Poleg, C. Arora, and S. Peleg. Temporal segmentation of egocentric
videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, pages 2537–2544, 2014.
[33] X. Ren and M. Philipose. Egocentric recognition of handled objects:
benchmark and analysis. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Workshops, 2009. CVPR Workshops 2009.
[34] M.S. Ryoo and J.K. Aggarwal. Hierarchical recognition of human
activities interacting with objects. In CVPR 2007.
[35] S. Salamah, L. Zhang, and G. Brunnett. Hierarchical method for
segmentation by classification of motion capture data. In Virtual Realities,
pages 169–186. Springer, 2015.
[36] K.A. Turano, D.R. Geruschat, F.H. Baker, et al. Oculomotor strategies for
the direction of gaze tested with a real-world activity. Vision research,
43(3):333–346, 2003.
[37] D. Yarbus. Eye motion and vision, 1967.
[38] F. Zhou, F. De la Torre, and J.K. Hodgins. Hierarchical aligned cluster
analysis for temporal clustering of human motion. IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(3):582– 596, 2013
[39] H. Ujir, and M. Spann. Surface Normals with Modular Approach and
Weighted Voting Scheme in 3D Facial Expression Classification.
International Journal of Computer & Information Technology, 3(5), 2014.
[40] H. Ujir. 3D Facial Expression Classification using a Statistical Model of
Surface Normals and a Modular Approach. PhD thesis, University of
Birmingham, 2013.
[41] H. Ujir, M. Spann, and I. Hipiny. 3D Facial Expression Classification
using 3D Facial Surface Normals. In ROVISP, pg. 245-253, 2014.
[42] I. Hipiny and H. Ujir. Measuring task performance using gaze region. In
CITA 2015.

