4.2 Article

Replacing eye trackers in ongoing studies: A comparison of eye-tracking data quality between the Tobii Pro TX300 and the Tobii Pro Spectrum

Journal

INFANCY
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 25-45

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/infa.12441

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek [024.001.003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compares the eye-tracking data quality between Tobii Pro TX300 and its successor Tobii Pro Spectrum, showing that the Spectrum outperforms the TX300 in accuracy and data loss, especially for younger infants.
The Tobii Pro TX300 is a popular eye tracker in developmental eye-tracking research, yet it is no longer manufactured. If a TX300 breaks down, it may have to be replaced. The data quality of the replacement eye tracker may differ from that of the TX300, which may affect the experimental outcome measures. This is problematic for longitudinal and multi-site studies, and for researchers replacing eye trackers between studies. We, therefore, ask how the TX300 and its successor, the Tobii Pro Spectrum, compare in terms of eye-tracking data quality. Data quality-operationalized through precision, accuracy, and data loss-was compared between eye trackers for three age groups (around 5-months, 10-months, and 3-years). Precision was better for all gaze position signals obtained with the Spectrum in comparison to the TX300. Accuracy of the Spectrum was higher for the 5-month-old and 10-month-old children. For the three-year-old children, accuracy was similar across both eye trackers. Gaze position signals from the Spectrum exhibited lower proportions of data loss, and the duration of the data loss periods tended to be shorter. In conclusion, the Spectrum produces gaze position signals with higher data quality, especially for the younger infants. Implications for data analysis are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available