Investigating eye movement acquisition and analysis technologies as a causal factor in differential prevalence of crossed and uncrossed fixation disparity during reading and dot scanning

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Kirkby, J.A., Blythe, H.I., Drieghe, D., Benson, V. and Liversedge, S.P.

Journal: Behav Res Methods

Volume: 45

Issue: 3

Pages: 664-678

eISSN: 1554-3528

DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0301-2

Previous studies examining binocular coordination during reading have reported conflicting results in terms of the nature of disparity (e.g. Kliegl, Nuthmann, & Engbert (Journal of Experimental Psychology General 135:12-35, 2006); Liversedge, White, Findlay, & Rayner (Vision Research 46:2363-2374, 2006). One potential cause of this inconsistency is differences in acquisition devices and associated analysis technologies. We tested this by directly comparing binocular eye movement recordings made using SR Research EyeLink 1000 and the Fourward Technologies Inc. DPI binocular eye-tracking systems. Participants read sentences or scanned horizontal rows of dot strings; for each participant, half the data were recorded with the EyeLink, and the other half with the DPIs. The viewing conditions in both testing laboratories were set to be very similar. Monocular calibrations were used. The majority of fixations recorded using either system were aligned, although data from the EyeLink system showed greater disparity magnitudes. Critically, for unaligned fixations, the data from both systems showed a majority of uncrossed fixations. These results suggest that variability in previous reports of binocular fixation alignment is attributable to the specific viewing conditions associated with a particular experiment (variables such as luminance and viewing distance), rather than acquisition and analysis software and hardware.

This source preferred by Julie Kirkby

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Kirkby, J.A., Blythe, H.I., Drieghe, D., Benson, V. and Liversedge, S.P.

Journal: Behavior Research Methods

Volume: 45

Issue: 3

Pages: 664-678

eISSN: 1554-3528

ISSN: 1554-351X

DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0301-2

Previous studies examining binocular coordination during reading have reported conflicting results in terms of the nature of disparity (e.g. Kliegl, Nuthmann, & Engbert (Journal of Experimental Psychology General 135:12-35, 2006); Liversedge, White, Findlay, & Rayner (Vision Research 46:2363-2374, 2006). One potential cause of this inconsistency is differences in acquisition devices and associated analysis technologies. We tested this by directly comparing binocular eye movement recordings made using SR Research EyeLink 1000 and the Fourward Technologies Inc. DPI binocular eye-tracking systems. Participants read sentences or scanned horizontal rows of dot strings; for each participant, half the data were recorded with the EyeLink, and the other half with the DPIs. The viewing conditions in both testing laboratories were set to be very similar. Monocular calibrations were used. The majority of fixations recorded using either system were aligned, although data from the EyeLink system showed greater disparity magnitudes. Critically, for unaligned fixations, the data from both systems showed a majority of uncrossed fixations. These results suggest that variability in previous reports of binocular fixation alignment is attributable to the specific viewing conditions associated with a particular experiment (variables such as luminance and viewing distance), rather than acquisition and analysis software and hardware. © 2013 Psychonomic Society, Inc.

This data was imported from Web of Science (Lite):

Authors: Kirkby, J.A., Blythe, H.I., Drieghe, D., Benson, V. and Liversedge, S.P.

Journal: BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS

Volume: 45

Issue: 3

Pages: 664-678

eISSN: 1554-3528

ISSN: 1554-351X

DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0301-2

This data was imported from Europe PubMed Central:

Authors: Kirkby, J.A., Blythe, H.I., Drieghe, D., Benson, V. and Liversedge, S.P.

Journal: Behavior research methods

Volume: 45

Issue: 3

Pages: 664-678

eISSN: 1554-3528

ISSN: 1554-351X

Previous studies examining binocular coordination during reading have reported conflicting results in terms of the nature of disparity (e.g. Kliegl, Nuthmann, & Engbert (Journal of Experimental Psychology General 135:12-35, 2006); Liversedge, White, Findlay, & Rayner (Vision Research 46:2363-2374, 2006). One potential cause of this inconsistency is differences in acquisition devices and associated analysis technologies. We tested this by directly comparing binocular eye movement recordings made using SR Research EyeLink 1000 and the Fourward Technologies Inc. DPI binocular eye-tracking systems. Participants read sentences or scanned horizontal rows of dot strings; for each participant, half the data were recorded with the EyeLink, and the other half with the DPIs. The viewing conditions in both testing laboratories were set to be very similar. Monocular calibrations were used. The majority of fixations recorded using either system were aligned, although data from the EyeLink system showed greater disparity magnitudes. Critically, for unaligned fixations, the data from both systems showed a majority of uncrossed fixations. These results suggest that variability in previous reports of binocular fixation alignment is attributable to the specific viewing conditions associated with a particular experiment (variables such as luminance and viewing distance), rather than acquisition and analysis software and hardware.

The data on this page was last updated at 05:12 on February 26, 2020.