ArticleScientific reports2025
earEOG via periauricular electrodes to facilitate eye tracking in a natural headphone form factor.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eye tracking technology is frequently utilized to diagnose eye and neurological disorders, assess sleep and fatigue, study human visual perception, and enable novel gaze-based interaction methods. However, traditional eye tracking methodologies are constrained by bespoke hardware that is often cumbersome to wear, complex to apply, and demands substantial computational resources. To overcome these limitations, we investigated the application of Electrooculography (EOG) eye tracking using 14 electrodes positioned around the ears, integrated into a custom-built headphone form factor device. In a controlled laboratory experiment, 16 participants tracked a series of on-screen stimuli designed to induce smooth pursuits and saccades. Data analysis identified the optimal electrode pairs for tracking vertical and horizontal eye movements, benchmarked against gold-standard EOG and camera-based eye tracking. The electrode montage closest to the eyes provided the best results for horizontal eye movements. One-dimensional smooth pursuit eye movements measured via earEOG exhibited a high correlation with the gold-standard for horizontal 1D pursuits spanning [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] visual angle for the best performing electrode pair ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]). Vertical 1D smooth pursuits were only weakly correlated for the best performing pair ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]). Voltage deflections of earEOG and gold-standard EOG for saccades from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] in the four cardinal directions are highly correlated for horizontal eye movement ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]) but not for vertical eye movements ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]). A regression model was employed to predict absolute gaze angle changes of horizontal saccades using earEOG and gold-standard EOG. In the left and right directions, the earEOG model achieved a mean absolute angular error of [Formula: see text], for saccades ranging from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text]. In comparison, gold-standard EOG attained mean absolute angular error of [Formula: see text]. Overall, horizontal earEOG demonstrated strong performance, indicating its potential effectiveness in our setup. On the other hand, vertical earEOG showed significantly poorer results, suggesting that it may not be feasible with our current configuration.
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.