Advertisement

Practical Considerations for Low-Cost Eye Tracking: An Analysis of Data Loss and Presentation of a Solution

  • Ciara SibleyEmail author
  • Cyrus K. Foroughi
  • Tatana Olson
  • Cory Moclaire
  • Joseph T. Coyne
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10284)

Abstract

This paper presents data loss figures from three experiments, varying in length and visual complexity, in which low-cost eye tracking data were collected. Analysis of data from the first two experiments revealed higher levels of data loss in the visually complex task environment and that task duration did not appear to impact data loss. Results from the third experiment demonstrate how data loss can be mitigated by including periodic eye tracking data quality assessments, which are described in detail. The paper concludes with a discussion of overall findings and provides suggestions for researchers interested in employing low-cost eye tracking in human subject experiments.

Keywords

Eye tracking Data quality Data loss Supervisory control 

References

  1. 1.
    Constine, J.: Oculus acquires eye-tracking startup The Eye Tribe. Tech Crunch, December 2016. https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/28/the-eye-tribe-oculus/
  2. 2.
    Ooms, K., et al.: Accuracy and precision of fixation locations recorded with the low-cost Eye Tribe tracker in different experimental set-ups. J. Eye Mov. Res. 8, 1–24 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Popelka, S., et al.: EyeTribe tracker data accuracy evaluation and its interconnection with hypothesis software for cartographic purposes. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2016, 9172506 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalmaijer, E.: Is the low-cost EyeTribe eye tracker any good for research? PeerJ PrePrints (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coyne, J., Sibley, C.: Investigating the use of two low cost eye tracking systems for detecting pupillary response to changes in mental workload. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Funke, G., et al.: 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. SAGE Publications (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gazepoint, Open Gaze API, in Version 2.0. http://www.gazept.com/dl/Gazepoint_API_v2.0.pdf
  8. 8.
    Turner, M.L., Engle, R.W.: Is working memory capacity task dependent? J. Mem. Lang. 28(2), 127–154 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ostoin, S.D.: An Assessment of the Performance-Based Measurement Battery (PBMB), the Navy’s Psychomotor Supplement to the Aviation Selection Test Battery (ASTB). DTIC Document (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sibley, C., Coyne, J., Thomas, J.: Demonstrating the supervisory control operations user testbed (SCOUT). In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sibley, C., Coyne, J., Avvari, G.V., Mishra, M., Pattipati, K.R.: Supporting multi-objective decision making within a supervisory control environment. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) AC 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9744, pp. 210–221. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39952-2_21 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ciara Sibley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cyrus K. Foroughi
    • 1
  • Tatana Olson
    • 2
  • Cory Moclaire
    • 2
  • Joseph T. Coyne
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Research LaboratoryWashington, D.C.USA
  2. 2.Naval Aerospace Medical InstitutePensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations