ArticleJournal of vision2026
EasyEyes: Crowded dynamic fixation for online psychophysics.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Online vision testing enables efficient data collection from diverse participants, but often requires accurate fixation. When needed, fixation accuracy is traditionally ensured by using a camera to track gaze. That works well in the laboratory, but tracking during online testing with a built-in webcam is not yet sufficiently precise. Kurzawski, Pombo, et al. (2023) introduced a fixation task that improves fixation through hand-eye coordination, requiring participants to track a moving crosshair with a mouse-controlled cursor. This dynamic fixation task greatly reduces peeking at peripheral targets relative to a stationary fixation task, but does not eliminate it. Here, we introduce a crowded dynamic fixation task that further enhances fixation by adding clutter around the fixation mark. We assessed fixation accuracy during peripheral threshold measurement. Relative to the root mean square gaze error during the stationary fixation task, the dynamic fixation error was 55%, whereas the crowded dynamic fixation error was only 40%. With a 1.5° tolerance, peeking occurred on 7% of trials with stationary fixation, 1.5% with dynamic fixation, and 0% with crowded dynamic fixation. This improvement eliminated implausibly low peripheral thresholds, likely by preventing peeking. We conclude that crowded dynamic fixation provides accurate gaze control for online testing.
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.