Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28712014›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2018

Do you see what I see? Mobile eye-tracker contextual analysis and inter-rater reliability.

S Stuart, D Hunt, J Nell, A Godfrey, J M Hausdorff, L Rochester, L Alcock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Feasibility of self-reported health related quality of life assessment with older people in residential care: insights from the application of eye tracking technology.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

S StuartInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK. sam.stuart@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6846-9372
D HuntInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.
J NellInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.
A GodfreyInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.
J M HausdorffCenter for Study of Movement, Cognition and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
L RochesterInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.
L AlcockInstitute of Neuroscience/Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.

Funding

European Commission 278169
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile eye-trackers are currently used during real-world tasks (e.g. gait) to monitor visual and cognitive processes, particularly in ageing and Parkinson's disease (PD). However, contextual analysis involving fixation locations during such tasks is rarely performed due to its complexity. This study adapted a validated algorithm and developed a classification method to semi-automate contextual analysis of mobile eye-tracking data. We further assessed inter-rater reliability of the proposed classification method. A mobile eye-tracker recorded eye-movements during walking in five healthy older adult controls (HC) and five people with PD. Fixations were identified using a previously validated algorithm, which was adapted to provide still images of fixation locations (n = 116). The fixation location was manually identified by two raters (DH, JN), who classified the locations. Cohen's kappa correlation coefficients determined the inter-rater reliability. The algorithm successfully provided still images for each fixation, allowing manual contextual analysis to be performed. The inter-rater reliability for classifying the fixation location was high for both PD (kappa = 0.80, 95% agreement) and HC groups (kappa = 0.80, 91% agreement), which indicated a reliable classification method. This study developed a reliable semi-automated contextual analysis method for gait studies in HC and PD. Future studies could adapt this methodology for various gait-related eye-tracking studies.

Indexed as

AgingEye Movement MeasurementsEye MovementsAdultAlgorithmsCase-Control StudiesExercise TestHumansParkinson DiseaseReproducibility of ResultsWalkingAlgorithmContextualEye-trackingInter-raterOlder adultsParkinson’s disease

Identifiers

PMID28712014
PMCPMC5790862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.