| Literature DB >> 35384605 |
Kenneth Holmqvist1,2,3, Saga Lee Örbom4, Ignace T C Hooge5, Diederick C Niehorster6, Robert G Alexander7, Richard Andersson8, Jeroen S Benjamins5,9, Pieter Blignaut10, Anne-Marie Brouwer11, Lewis L Chuang12,13, Kirsten A Dalrymple14, Denis Drieghe15, Matt J Dunn16, Ulrich Ettinger17, Susann Fiedler18, Tom Foulsham19, Jos N van der Geest20, Dan Witzner Hansen21, Samuel B Hutton22, Enkelejda Kasneci23, Alan Kingstone24, Paul C Knox25, Ellen M Kok26,27, Helena Lee28, Joy Yeonjoo Lee29, Jukka M Leppänen30, Stephen Macknik7, Päivi Majaranta31, Susana Martinez-Conde7, Antje Nuthmann32, Marcus Nyström33, Jacob L Orquin34,35, Jorge Otero-Millan36, Soon Young Park37, Stanislav Popelka38, Frank Proudlock39, Frank Renkewitz40, Austin Roorda36, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck41,42, Bonita Sharif43, Frederick Shic44,45, Mark Shovman46,47, Mervyn G Thomas39, Ward Venrooij48, Raimondas Zemblys49, Roy S Hessels5.
Abstract
In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section "An empirically based minimal reporting guideline").Entities:
Keywords: Data quality; Eye movements; Eye tracking; Replicability; Reporting guidelines; Reporting practices; Reporting standards; Reproducibility
Year: 2022 PMID： 35384605 PMCID： PMC9535040 DOI： 10.3758/s13428-021-01762-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Res Methods ISSN： 1554-351X