Validity of low-resolution eye-tracking to assess eye movements during a rapid number naming task: performance of the eyetribe eye tracker

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjective: To evaluate the performance of the EyeTribe compared to the EyeLink for eye movement recordings during a rapid number naming test in healthy control participants.Background: With the increasing accessibility of portable, economical, video-based eye trackers such as the EyeTribe, there is growing interest in these devices for eye movement recordings, particularly in the domain of sports-related concussion. However, prior to implementation there is a primary need to establish the validity of these devices. One current limitation of portable eye trackers is their sampling rate (30–60 samples per second, or Hz), which is typically well below the benchmarks achieved by their research-grade counterparts (e.g., the EyeLink, which samples at 500–2000 Hz).Methods: We compared video-oculographic measurements made using the EyeTribe with those of the EyeLink during a digitized rapid number naming task (the King-Devick test) in a convenience sample of 30 controls.Results: EyeTribe had loss of signal during recording, and failed to reproduce the typical shape of saccadic main sequence relationships. In addition, EyeTribe data yielded significantly fewer detectable saccades and displayed greater variance of inter-saccadic intervals than the EyeLink system.Conclusion: Caution is advised prior to implementation of low-resolution eye trackers for objective saccade assessment and sideline concussion screening.