Jenelle Raynowska1, John-Ross Rizzo1,2, Janet C Rucker1, Weiwei Dai1,3, Joel Birkemeier2, Julian Hershowitz2, Ivan Selesnick3, Laura J Balcer1,4,5, Steven L Galetta1,5, Todd Hudson1,2. 1. a Department of Neurology , NYU School of Medicine , New York , NY , USA. 2. c Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation , NYU School of Medicine , New York , NY , USA. 3. b Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering , NYU Tandon School of Engineering , New York , NY , USA. 4. d Department of Population Health , NYU School of Medicine , New York , NY , USA. 5. e Department of Ophthalmology , NYU School of Medicine , New York , NY , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the EyeTribe compared to the EyeLink for eye movement recordings during a rapid number naming test in healthy control participants. BACKGROUND: With the increasing accessibility of portable, economical, video-based eye trackers such as the EyeTribe, there is growing interest in these devices for eye movement recordings, particularly in the domain of sports-related concussion. However, prior to implementation there is a primary need to establish the validity of these devices. One current limitation of portable eye trackers is their sampling rate (30-60 samples per second, or Hz), which is typically well below the benchmarks achieved by their research-grade counterparts (e.g., the EyeLink, which samples at 500-2000 Hz). METHODS: We compared video-oculographic measurements made using the EyeTribe with those of the EyeLink during a digitized rapid number naming task (the King-Devick test) in a convenience sample of 30 controls. RESULTS: EyeTribe had loss of signal during recording, and failed to reproduce the typical shape of saccadic main sequence relationships. In addition, EyeTribe data yielded significantly fewer detectable saccades and displayed greater variance of inter-saccadic intervals than the EyeLink system. CONCLUSION: Caution is advised prior to implementation of low-resolution eye trackers for objective saccade assessment and sideline concussion screening.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the EyeTribe compared to the EyeLink for eye movement recordings during a rapid number naming test in healthy control participants. BACKGROUND: With the increasing accessibility of portable, economical, video-based eye trackers such as the EyeTribe, there is growing interest in these devices for eye movement recordings, particularly in the domain of sports-related concussion. However, prior to implementation there is a primary need to establish the validity of these devices. One current limitation of portable eye trackers is their sampling rate (30-60 samples per second, or Hz), which is typically well below the benchmarks achieved by their research-grade counterparts (e.g., the EyeLink, which samples at 500-2000 Hz). METHODS: We compared video-oculographic measurements made using the EyeTribe with those of the EyeLink during a digitized rapid number naming task (the King-Devick test) in a convenience sample of 30 controls. RESULTS: EyeTribe had loss of signal during recording, and failed to reproduce the typical shape of saccadic main sequence relationships. In addition, EyeTribe data yielded significantly fewer detectable saccades and displayed greater variance of inter-saccadic intervals than the EyeLink system. CONCLUSION: Caution is advised prior to implementation of low-resolution eye trackers for objective saccade assessment and sideline concussion screening.
Entities:
Keywords:
Concussion; eye movement measurements; eye movements; king-devick; rapid number naming; saccades; video oculography
Authors: K M Galetta; J Barrett; M Allen; F Madda; D Delicata; A T Tennant; C C Branas; M G Maguire; L V Messner; S Devick; S L Galetta; L J Balcer Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David X Cifu; Joanna R Wares; Kathy W Hoke; Paul A Wetzel; George Gitchel; William Carne Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Marcus H Heitger; Richard D Jones; John C Dalrymple-Alford; Chris M Frampton; Michael W Ardagh; Tim J Anderson Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: John-Ross Rizzo; Todd E Hudson; Weiwei Dai; Joel Birkemeier; Rosa M Pasculli; Ivan Selesnick; Laura J Balcer; Steven L Galetta; Janet C Rucker Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Kenneth Holmqvist; Saga Lee Örbom; Ignace T C Hooge; Diederick C Niehorster; Robert G Alexander; Richard Andersson; Jeroen S Benjamins; Pieter Blignaut; Anne-Marie Brouwer; Lewis L Chuang; Kirsten A Dalrymple; Denis Drieghe; Matt J Dunn; Ulrich Ettinger; Susann Fiedler; Tom Foulsham; Jos N van der Geest; Dan Witzner Hansen; Samuel B Hutton; Enkelejda Kasneci; Alan Kingstone; Paul C Knox; Ellen M Kok; Helena Lee; Joy Yeonjoo Lee; Jukka M Leppänen; Stephen Macknik; Päivi Majaranta; Susana Martinez-Conde; Antje Nuthmann; Marcus Nyström; Jacob L Orquin; Jorge Otero-Millan; Soon Young Park; Stanislav Popelka; Frank Proudlock; Frank Renkewitz; Austin Roorda; Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck; Bonita Sharif; Frederick Shic; Mark Shovman; Mervyn G Thomas; Ward Venrooij; Raimondas Zemblys; Roy S Hessels Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2022-04-06