ArticleJournal of eye movement research2025
The Impact of Ophthalmic Lens Power and Treatments on Eye Tracking Performance.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Eye tracking (ET) technology is increasingly used in both research and clinical practice, but its accuracy may be compromised by the presence of ophthalmic lenses. This study systematically evaluated the influence of different optical prescriptions and lens treatments on ET performance using DIVE (Device for an Integral Visual Examination). Fourteen healthy participants underwent oculomotor control tests under thirteen optical conditions: six with varying dioptric powers and six with optical filters, compared against a no-lens control. Key parameters analysed included angle error, fixation stability (bivariate contour ellipse area, BCEA), saccadic accuracy, number of data gaps, and proportion of valid frames. High-powered spherical lenses (+6.00 D and -6.00 D) significantly increased gaze angle error, and the negative lens also increased data gaps, while cylindrical lenses had a moderate effect. Among filters, the Natural IR coating caused the greatest deterioration in ET performance, reducing valid samples and increasing the number of gaps with data loss, likely due to interference with the infrared-based detection system. The lens with basic anti-reflective treatment (SV Org 1.5 AR) also showed some deterioration in interaction with the ET. Other filters showed minimal or no significant impact. These findings demonstrate that both high-powered prescriptions and certain lens treatments can compromise ET data quality, highlighting the importance of accounting for optical conditions in experimental design and clinical applications.
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.