ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Effects of tracker location on the accuracy and precision of the Gazepoint GP3 HD for spectacle wearers.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Examining the Visual Search Behaviour of Experts When Screening for the Presence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Fundus Images.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Remote view eye-tracking systems are prone to errors when used on spectacle wearers due to reflections from the lenses and frame that result in inaccurate tracking. Traditionally, these trackers are situated below a computer monitor and the viewer's eye moments are recorded while they view the screen. Reflections may be influenced by the pantoscopic tilt of the spectacles, whereby the tilt angle causes incident light to be reflected to the camera. To overcome this problem, we propose mounting the tracker above the monitor to avoid these reflections and test the accuracy and precision of subjects with single vision spectacles, multifocals, and no correction, using both mounting positions. Experimental results showed that this alternate position had overall worse accuracy (4.06° ± 0.13) and precision (0.67° ± 0.05) compared to the standard configuration (2.15° ± 0.06 vs. 0.50° ± 0.03), with more invalid readings (5.91 vs. 19.19%) for single vision lens wearers. Multifocals performed better for the top-mounting position for the top portion of the monitor, suggesting higher-order aberrations from the bottom portion of the lens negatively impact data quality. Higher pantoscopic tilt angles displayed an improved accuracy for this alternate position (r
Indexed as
Identifiers
36414846What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.