SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Do you see what I see? Mobile eye-tracker contextual analysis and inter-rater reliability.

Med Biol Eng Comput · 2017-07-15

DOI: 10.1007/s11517-017-1669-zPMID: 28712014

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Mobile eye-trackers are currently used during real-world tasks (e.g. gait) to monitor visual and cognitive processes, particularly in ageing and Parkinson's disease (PD). However, contextual analysis involving fixation locations during such tasks is rarely performed due to its complexity. This study adapted a validated algorithm and developed a classification method to semi-automate contextual analysis of mobile eye-tracking data. We further assessed inter-rater reliability of the proposed classification method. A mobile eye-tracker recorded eye-movements during walking in five healthy older adult controls (HC) and five people with PD. Fixations were identified using a previously validated algorithm, which was adapted to provide still images of fixation locations (n = 116). The fixation location was manually identified by two raters (DH, JN), who classified the locations. Cohen's kappa correlation coefficients determined the inter-rater reliability. The algorithm successfully provided still images for each fixation, allowing manual contextual analysis to be performed. The inter-rater reliability for classifying the fixation location was high for both PD (kappa = 0.80, 95% agreement) and HC groups (kappa = 0.80, 91% agreement), which indicated a reliable classification method. This study developed a reliable semi-automated contextual analysis method for gait studies in HC and PD. Future studies could adapt this methodology for various gait-related eye-tracking studies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.