ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Improving Eye-Tracking Data Quality: A Framework for Reproducible Evaluation of Detection Algorithms.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI-enabled eye-movement and emerging multimodal frameworks for precision dyslexia screening and reading pattern analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Learner stimulus intent: a framework for eye tracking data collection and feature extraction in computer programming education.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-quality eye-tracking data are crucial in behavioral sciences and medicine. Even with a solid understanding of the literature, selecting the most suitable algorithm for a specific research project poses a challenge. Empowering applied researchers to choose the best-fitting detector for their research needs is the primary contribution of this paper. We developed a framework to systematically assess and compare the effectiveness of 13 state-of-the-art algorithms through a unified application interface. Hence, we more than double the number of algorithms that are currently usable within a single software package and allow researchers to identify the best-suited algorithm for a given scientific setup. Our framework validation on retrospective data underscores its suitability for algorithm selection. Through a detailed and reproducible step-by-step workflow, we hope to contribute towards significantly improved data quality in scientific experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.