Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41491241›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Technical validation of a virtual reality-based eye tracker for neuro-ophthalmic assessment: a reliability and reproducibility study.

Irem Karaer, Callum Hunt, Ha-Jun Yoon, Runfeng Ma, Reenette Savant, Vanessa Rodwell, Riddhi Shenoy, Zhanhan Tu, Qadeer Arshad, Elizabeta B Mukaetova-Ladinska and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Irem KaraerUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Callum HuntUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Ha-Jun YoonUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Runfeng MaUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Reenette SavantUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Vanessa RodwellUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Riddhi ShenoyUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Zhanhan TuUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Qadeer ArshadSchool of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Elizabeta B Mukaetova-LadinskaSchool of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Mervyn G ThomasUlverscroft Eye Unit, School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. mt350@le.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) eye trackers provide portable and objective tools for neuro-ophthalmic testing. This study aimed to assess the reliability and reproducibility of an emerging VR-based eye tracker (BulbiCAM) in healthy participants and compare its utility to an existing wearable eye-tracking system (PupilLabs Neon), thereby laying the groundwork for the future studies of clinical feasibility. Thirty-nine healthy participants underwent BulbiCAM testing across two visits, with inter-visit reproducibility evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients. Pupillary light reflex assessments were conducted with both devices, allowing paired comparisons. Participant feedback demonstrated high acceptability, with 89% reporting the test as comfortable and 81.5% experiencing no eye strain or fatigue. BulbiCAM showed high reproducibility for pupil and pursuit tests (ICC = 0.76-0.88), though saccade reproducibility was lower (ICC = 0.46-0.62) which indicates limited reliability for saccade metrics. Key pupillometric parameters showed strong agreement between devices, with minimal bias observed in baseline diameter (-0.48 mm), peak constriction (-0.56 mm), constriction velocity (0.22 mm/s), and duration (-0.052 s). These findings support the potential clinical feasibility and reliability of BulbiCAM for both research and patient testing, offering a promising alternative for objective neuro-ophthalmic assessment.

Indexed as

Eye-Tracking TechnologyVirtual RealityAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedPupilReflex, PupillaryReproducibility of ResultsSaccadesYoung AdultFeasibilityNeuro-ophthalmic assessmentReliabilityReproducibilityVR eye tracker

Identifiers

PMID41491241
PMCPMC12789551

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.