Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33628410›Full record

Articlei-Perception

A Comparison of Eye Tracking Latencies Among Several Commercial Head-Mounted Displays.

Niklas Stein, Diederick C Niehorster, Tamara Watson, Frank Steinicke, Katharina Rifai, Siegfried Wahl, Markus Lappe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Niklas SteinInstitute for Psychology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5854-5407
Diederick C NiehorsterLund University Humanities Lab and Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4672-8756
Tamara WatsonSchool of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia.
Frank SteinickeDepartment of Informatics, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Katharina Rifai
Siegfried WahlZEISS Vision Science Lab, Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Tübingen, Germany.
Markus LappeInstitute for Psychology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of virtual reality head-mounted displays (HMDs) with integrated eye trackers have recently become commercially available. If their eye tracking latency is low and reliable enough for gaze-contingent rendering, this may open up many interesting opportunities for researchers. We measured eye tracking latencies for the Fove-0, the Varjo VR-1, and the High Tech Computer Corporation (HTC) Vive Pro Eye using simultaneous electrooculography measurements. We determined the time from the occurrence of an eye position change to its availability as a data sample from the eye tracker (delay) and the time from an eye position change to the earliest possible change of the display content (latency). For each test and each device, participants performed 60 saccades between two targets 20° of visual angle apart. The targets were continuously visible in the HMD, and the saccades were instructed by an auditory cue. Data collection and eye tracking calibration were done using the recommended scripts for each device in Unity3D. The Vive Pro Eye was recorded twice, once using the SteamVR SDK and once using the Tobii XR SDK. Our results show clear differences between the HMDs. Delays ranged from 15 ms to 52 ms, and the latencies ranged from 45 ms to 81 ms. The Fove-0 appears to be the fastest device and best suited for gaze-contingent rendering.

Indexed as

eye trackinggaze-contingent renderingvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID33628410
PMCPMC7883159

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.