» Articles » PMID: 27193160

One Algorithm to Rule Them All? An Evaluation and Discussion of Ten Eye Movement Event-detection Algorithms

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2016 May 20
PMID 27193160
Citations 58
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Almost all eye-movement researchers use algorithms to parse raw data and detect distinct types of eye movement events, such as fixations, saccades, and pursuit, and then base their results on these. Surprisingly, these algorithms are rarely evaluated. We evaluated the classifications of ten eye-movement event detection algorithms, on data from an SMI HiSpeed 1250 system, and compared them to manual ratings of two human experts. The evaluation focused on fixations, saccades, and post-saccadic oscillations. The evaluation used both event duration parameters, and sample-by-sample comparisons to rank the algorithms. The resulting event durations varied substantially as a function of what algorithm was used. This evaluation differed from previous evaluations by considering a relatively large set of algorithms, multiple events, and data from both static and dynamic stimuli. The main conclusion is that current detectors of only fixations and saccades work reasonably well for static stimuli, but barely better than chance for dynamic stimuli. Differing results across evaluation methods make it difficult to select one winner for fixation detection. For saccade detection, however, the algorithm by Larsson, Nyström and Stridh (IEEE Transaction on Biomedical Engineering, 60(9):2484-2493,2013) outperforms all algorithms in data from both static and dynamic stimuli. The data also show how improperly selected algorithms applied to dynamic data misestimate fixation and saccade properties.

Citing Articles

Computational approaches to apply the String Edit Algorithm to create accurate visual scan paths.

Palma Fraga R, Kang Z J Eye Mov Res. 2025; 17(4).

PMID: 39877930 PMC: 11714258. DOI: 10.16910/jemr.17.4.4.


The fundamentals of eye tracking part 2: From research question to operationalization.

Hooge I, Nuthmann A, Nystrom M, Niehorster D, Holleman G, Andersson R Behav Res Methods. 2025; 57(2):73.

PMID: 39856471 PMC: 11761893. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-024-02590-2.


The fundamentals of eye tracking part 3: How to choose an eye tracker.

Nystrom M, Hooge I, Hessels R, Andersson R, Hansen D, Johansson R Behav Res Methods. 2025; 57(2):67.

PMID: 39843609 PMC: 11754381. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-024-02587-x.


The fundamentals of eye tracking part 4: Tools for conducting an eye tracking study.

Niehorster D, Nystrom M, Hessels R, Andersson R, Benjamins J, Hansen D Behav Res Methods. 2025; 57(1):46.

PMID: 39762687 PMC: 11703944. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-024-02529-7.


Gaze behavior reveals automaticity and attention allocation during music teaching vs. observing.

Heinsen R J Eye Mov Res. 2024; 17(2).

PMID: 39238770 PMC: 11376228. DOI: 10.16910/jemr.17.2.3.