Abstract
AbstractMobile head-worn eye trackers allow researchers to record eye-movement data as participants freely move around and interact with their surroundings. However, participant behavior may cause the eye tracker to slip on the participant’s head, potentially strongly affecting data quality. To investigate how this eye-tracker slippage affects data quality, we designed experiments in which participants mimic behaviors that can cause a mobile eye tracker to move. Specifically, we investigated data quality when participants speak, make facial expressions, and move the eye tracker. Four head-worn eye-tracking setups were used: (i) Tobii Pro Glasses 2 in 50 Hz mode, (ii) SMI Eye Tracking Glasses 2.0 60 Hz, (iii) Pupil-Labs’ Pupil in 3D mode, and (iv) Pupil-Labs’ Pupil with the Grip gaze estimation algorithm as implemented in the EyeRecToo software. Our results show that whereas gaze estimates of the Tobii and Grip remained stable when the eye tracker moved, the other systems exhibited significant errors (0.8–3.1∘ increase in gaze deviation over baseline) even for the small amounts of glasses movement that occurred during the speech and facial expressions tasks. We conclude that some of the tested eye-tracking setups may not be suitable for investigating gaze behavior when high accuracy is required, such as during face-to-face interaction scenarios. We recommend that users of mobile head-worn eye trackers perform similar tests with their setups to become aware of its characteristics. This will enable researchers to design experiments that are robust to the limitations of their particular eye-tracking setup.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference65 articles.
1. Ahlstrom, C., Kircher, K., Thorslund, B., & Adell, E. (2016). Bicyclists’ visual strategies when conducting self-paced vs. system-paced smart phone tasks in traffic. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 41, 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.01.010
2. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Neurodevelopmental disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm01
3. Aronson, R. M., Santini, T., Kübler, T. C., Kasneci, E., Srinivasa, S., & Admoni, H. (2018). Eye-hand behavior in human–robot shared manipulation. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp. 4–13.
4. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995). Memory representations in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66
5. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, IUPAC, IUPAP, & OIML (2012). The international vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM) (3rd ed.; Tech. Rep. No. JCGM 200:2012). http://www.bipm.org/vim.
Cited by
100 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献