Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41839885›Full record

ArticleScientific data2026

Eye movement benchmark data for smooth-pursuit classification.

Luke Korthals, Ingmar Visser, Šimon Kucharský

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 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

3 authors.

Luke KorthalsUniversity of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Amsterdam, 1018 WS, The Netherlands. l.korthals@uva.nl.ORCID 0009-0006-2098-8679
Ingmar VisserUniversity of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Amsterdam, 1018 WS, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3855-2778
Šimon KucharskýTechnical University Dortmund, Department of Statistics, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4192-1140

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis of eye tracking data often requires accurate classification of eye movement events. Human experts and classification algorithms often confuse episodes of fixations (fixating stationary targets) and smooth pursuits (fixating moving targets) because their feature characteristics overlap. To foster the development of better classification algorithms, we created a benchmark data set that does not rely on human annotation as the gold standard. It consists of almost four hours of eye movements. Ten participants fixated different targets designed to induce saccades, fixations, and smooth pursuits. Plausible benchmark labels were established by designing stimuli that prevent fixations and smooth pursuits to co-occur, and separating them from saccades by their velocity. Here we make available both the raw data and offer a convenient way for preprocessing and assigning plausible benchmark labels in the form of a companion package in Python. We encourage researchers to utilize them for feature engineering, and to train, validate, and benchmark their algorithms.

Indexed as

Classification AlgorithmsEye MovementsEye-Tracking TechnologyPursuit, SmoothAdultBenchmarkingDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansMaleSaccadesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41839885
PMCPMC12992799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.