Literature DB >> 31328028

A new comprehensive eye-tracking test battery concurrently evaluating the Pupil Labs glasses and the EyeLink 1000.

Benedikt V Ehinger1,2, Katharina Groß1, Inga Ibs1, Peter König1,3.   

Abstract

Eye-tracking experiments rely heavily on good data quality of eye-trackers. Unfortunately, it is often the case that only the spatial accuracy and precision values are available from the manufacturers. These two values alone are not sufficient to serve as a benchmark for an eye-tracker: Eye-tracking quality deteriorates during an experimental session due to head movements, changing illumination or calibration decay. Additionally, different experimental paradigms require the analysis of different types of eye movements; for instance, smooth pursuit movements, blinks or microsaccades, which themselves cannot readily be evaluated by using spatial accuracy or precision alone. To obtain a more comprehensive description of properties, we developed an extensive eye-tracking test battery. In 10 different tasks, we evaluated eye-tracking related measures such as: the decay of accuracy, fixation durations, pupil dilation, smooth pursuit movement, microsaccade classification, blink classification, or the influence of head motion. For some measures, true theoretical values exist. For others, a relative comparison to a reference eye-tracker is needed. Therefore, we collected our gaze data simultaneously from a remote EyeLink 1000 eye-tracker as the reference and compared it with the mobile Pupil Labs glasses. As expected, the average spatial accuracy of 0.57° for the EyeLink 1000 eye-tracker was better than the 0.82° for the Pupil Labs glasses (N = 15). Furthermore, we classified less fixations and shorter saccade durations for the Pupil Labs glasses. Similarly, we found fewer microsaccades using the Pupil Labs glasses. The accuracy over time decayed only slightly for the EyeLink 1000, but strongly for the Pupil Labs glasses. Finally, we observed that the measured pupil diameters differed between eye-trackers on the individual subject level but not on the group level. To conclude, our eye-tracking test battery offers 10 tasks that allow us to benchmark the many parameters of interest in stereotypical eye-tracking situations and addresses a common source of confounds in measurement errors (e.g., yaw and roll head movements). All recorded eye-tracking data (including Pupil Labs' eye videos), the stimulus code for the test battery, and the modular analysis pipeline are freely available (https://github.com/behinger/etcomp).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy and precision; Blinks; Calibration decay; Eye-tracker benchmark; EyeLink 1000; Head movements; Microsaccades; Pupil Labs glasses; Pupil dilation; Smooth pursuit

Year:  2019        PMID: 31328028      PMCID: PMC6625505          DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PeerJ        ISSN: 2167-8359            Impact factor:   2.984


  21 in total

1.  GazeMetrics: An Open-Source Tool for Measuring the Data Quality of HMD-based Eye Trackers.

Authors:  Isayas B Adhanom; Samantha C Lee; Eelke Folmer; Paul MacNeilage
Journal:  Proc Eye Track Res Appl Symp       Date:  2020-06

2.  A low-cost robotic oculomotor simulator for assessing eye tracking accuracy in health and disease.

Authors:  Al Lotze; Kassia Love; Anca Velisar; Natela M Shanidze
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-08-10

3.  Eye tracking: empirical foundations for a minimal reporting guideline.

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

4.  An implicit representation of stimulus ambiguity in pupil size.

Authors:  Jackson E Graves; Paul Egré; Daniel Pressnitzer; Vincent de Gardelle
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 12.779

5.  A toolkit for wide-screen dynamic area of interest measurements using the Pupil Labs Core Eye Tracker.

Authors:  Yasmin Faraji; Joris W van Rijn; Ruth M A van Nispen; Ger H M B van Rens; Bart J M Melis-Dankers; Jan Koopman; Laurentius J van Rijn
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-10-17

Review 6.  Avoiding potential pitfalls in visual search and eye-movement experiments: A tutorial review.

Authors:  Hayward J Godwin; Michael C Hout; Katrín J Alexdóttir; Stephen C Walenchok; Anthony S Barnhart
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Visual Neuroscience Methods for Marmosets: Efficient Receptive Field Mapping and Head-Free Eye Tracking.

Authors:  Patrick Jendritza; Frederike J Klein; Gustavo Rohenkohl; Pascal Fries
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-05-17

8.  Neurogastronomy as a Tool for Evaluating Emotions and Visual Preferences of Selected Food Served in Different Ways.

Authors:  Jakub Berčík; Johana Paluchová; Katarína Neomániová
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2021-02-07

9.  Ocular measures during associative learning predict recall accuracy.

Authors:  Aakash A Dave; Matthew Lehet; Vaibhav A Diwadkar; Katharine N Thakkar
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Eye, head, and gaze contributions to smooth pursuit in macular degeneration.

Authors:  Natela M Shanidze; Anca Velisar
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.