Characterization of Eye Gaze and Pupil Diameter Measurements from Remote and Mobile Eye-Tracking Devices
Eye-tracking technology allows to capture real-time visual behavior information and to provide insights about cognitive processes and autonomic function, by measuring gaze position and pupillary response to delivered stimuli. Over the recent years, the development of easy-to-use devices led to a large increase in the use of eye-tracking in a broad spectrum of applications, e.g. clinical diagnostics and psychological research. Given the lack of extensive material to characterize the performance of different eye-trackers, especially latest generation devices, the present study aimed at comparing a screen-mounted eye-tracker (remote) and a pair of wearable eye-tracking glasses (mobile). Seventeen healthy subjects were asked to look at a moving target on a screen for 90 s, while point of regard (POR) and pupil diameter (PD) were recorded by the two devices with a sampling rate of 30 Hz. First, data were preprocessed to remove artifacts, then correlation coefficients (for both signals) and magnitude-squared coherence (for PD) were calculated to assess signals agreement in time and frequency domain. POR measurements from remote and mobile devices resulted highly comparable (ρ > 0.75). PD showed lower correlation and major dispersion (ρ > 0.50), besides a higher number of invalid samples from the mobile device with respect to the remote one. Results provided evidence that the two instruments do share the same content at the level of information generally used to characterize subjects behavioral and physiological reactions. Future analysis of additional features and devices with higher sampling frequencies will be planned to further support their clinical use.
KeywordsEye tracking Remote eye-tracker Mobile eye-tracker Eye gaze Pupil diameter
The authors acknowledge PHEEL (http://pheel.polimi.it/) for the valuable support in both experimental and methodological development.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
- 6.Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., Van de Weijer, J.: Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
- 8.Pierce, K., Marinero, S., Hazin, R., McKenna, B., Barnes, C.C., Malige, A.: Eye tracking reveals abnormal visual preference for geometric images as an early biomarker of an autism spectrum disorder subtype associated with increased symptom severity. Biol. Psychiat. 79(8), 657–666 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Nevalainen, S., Sajaniemi, J.: Comparison of three eye tracking devices in psychology of programming research. PPIG 4, 151–158 (2004)Google Scholar
- 13.Camm, A., Malik, M., Bigger, J., Breithardt, G., Cerutti, S., Cohen, R., et al.: Heart rate variability: standards of measurement, physiological interpretation and clinical use. Task force of the european society of cardiology and the north american society of pacing and electrophysiology. Circulation 93, 1043–1065 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Andersson, R., Nyström, M., Holmqvist, K.: Sampling frequency and eye-tracking measures: how speed affects durations, latencies, and more. J. Eye Mov. Res. 3(3), 6 (2010)Google Scholar
- 15.Funke, G., Greenlee, E., Carter, M., Dukes, A., Brown, R., Menke, L.: Which eye tracker is right for your research? Performance evaluation of several cost variant eye trackers. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1240–1244. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar