ArticleBehavior research methods2025
A validation study on the accuracy and precision of gaze and vergence using stereoscopic eye-tracking technology.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. 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.
- Two distinct modes of ocular drift observed during figure-ground perception.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Binocular video-based eye-tracking allows for gaze and vergence measurements, but the accuracy and precision of vergence are barely addressed. Here, we investigate the accuracy and precision of both gaze and vergence measurements using a stereoscopic eye-tracking system. Previous studies have evaluated stereoscopic eye-trackers for gaze eccentricities up to 16°. We validated a custom-built stereoscopic eye-tracker with two cameras and two infrared light sources for gaze eccentricities up to 21°. Additionally, we studied the impact of fixation distance and pupil size on vergence accuracy. Participants with normal binocular vision (N = 8) performed fixation tasks, enabling the assessment of both gaze and vergence errors. The stereoscopic system provided gaze estimates with a mean absolute error (MAE) of less than 1° within the central visual field. However, the accuracy decreased for peripheral angles larger than 14°. We found a MAE of 0.89 ± 0.58° in measuring vergence and a strong linear association between target vergence and measured vergence, with a slope of 0.99 ± 0.05. In contrast to previous studies using single-camera eye-trackers, we found no systematic influence of pupil size on the vergence measurements. Although there was high agreement between estimated and ground truth vergence in the central field, the system did struggle to maintain accuracy at larger eccentricities. This limitation arises primarily from the loss of reliable glints rather than technical constraints, indicating the need for alternative approaches to enhance accuracy in wider fields of view.
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.