Back

Quantitative comparison of a mobile, tablet-based and two stationary, video-based eye-trackers

Koenig, A.; Bremmer, F.; Dowiasch, S.

2023-06-12 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.06.12.544554 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AbstractThe analysis of eye-movements is a non-invasive, reliable and fast method to detect and quantify brain (dys-)functions. Here, we investigated the performance of two novel eye-trackers: the Thomas-Oculus-Motus-research mobile (TOM-rm) and the TOM-research stationary (TOM-rs) and compared it with the performance of a well-established video-based eye-tracker, i.e., the EyeLink 1000 (EL). The TOM-rm is a fully integrated, tablet-based mobile device that presents visual stimuli and records head-unrestrained eye-movements at 30Hz without additional infrared (IR) illumination. The TOM-rs is a stationary, video-based eye-tracker that records eye-movements at either high spatial or high temporal resolution. We compared the performance of all three eye-trackers in two different behavioral tasks: pro- and anti-saccade and free viewing. We collected data from human subjects while running all three eye-tracking devices in parallel. Parameters requiring a high spatial or temporal resolution (e.g., saccade latency or gain), as derived from the data, differed significantly between the EL and the TOM-rm in the pro- and anti-saccade task. In the free viewing task, larger noise and the lower frame rate of the TOM-rm caused deviations of the results with respect to the EL. Differences between results derived from the TOM-rs and the EL were most likely due to experimental conditions, which could not be optimized for both systems simultaneously. We conclude that the TOM-rm can be used for measuring eye-movements reliably at comparably low spatial and temporal resolution. The TOM-rs, on the other hand, can provide high-resolution oculomotor data at least on a par with an established reference system.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.