Quantitative comparison of a mobile and a stationary video-based eye-tracker

Vision represents the most important sense of primates. To understand visual processing, various different methods are employed—for example, electrophysiology, psychophysics, or eye-tracking. For the latter method, researchers have recently begun to step outside the artificial environments of laboratory setups toward the more natural conditions we usually face in the real world. To get a better understanding of the advantages and limitations of modern mobile eye-trackers, we quantitatively compared one of the most advanced mobile eye-trackers available, the EyeSeeCam, with a commonly used laboratory eye-tracker, the EyeLink II, serving as a gold standard. We aimed to investigate whether or not fully mobile eye-trackers are capable of providing data that would be adequate for direct comparisons with data recorded by stationary eye-trackers. Therefore, we recorded three different, commonly used eye movements—fixations, saccades, and smooth-pursuit eye movements—with both eye-trackers, in successive standardized paradigms in a laboratory setting with eight human subjects. Despite major technical differences between the devices, most eye movement parameters were not statistically different between the two systems. Differences could only be found in overall gaze accuracy and for time-critical parameters such as saccade duration, for which a higher sample frequency is especially useful. Although the stationary EyeLink II system proved to be superior, especially on a single-subject or even a single-trial basis, the ESC showed similar performance for the averaged parameters across both trials and subjects. We concluded that modern mobile eye-trackers are well-suited to providing reliable oculomotor data at the required spatial and temporal resolutions.