ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Comparing automated gaze classifiers in infant looking studies: Accuracy and vulnerability to environmental factors.
Article in Behavior research methods, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the performance and environmental robustness of three state-of-the-art gaze classification algorithms designed for infant looking-time research: iCatcher+, OWLET, and an Amazon Rekognition-based model. Gaze classifications for each algorithm were compared to human-coded data using a novel dataset (N = 47), and iCatcher+ demonstrated the highest agreement (78.4-85.4%). We then investigated the effect of environmental factors commonly encountered in webcam-based home experiments with infants. We quantified six factors: distance to the camera; infants' left-right offset; facial rotation; facial movement; facial brightness; and spatial variability in facial brightness. Suboptimal recording conditions led to performance degradation for all algorithms. Even iCatcher+, while the most accurate overall, was susceptible, particularly when facial illumination was uneven (i.e., strong brightness variability) or when the head position moved substantially. These findings provide practical insights into the selection and deployment of gaze classification tools for infant research, and can be used to optimize instructions for participants in home webcam experiments. This study contributes to improving methodological transparency and reliability in remote infant eye-tracking research.
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.