Evaluating three approaches to binary event-level agreement scoring. A reply to Friedman (2020)

Eye tracking: empirical foundations for a minimal reporting guideline

In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section "An empirically based minimal reporting guideline").

Evaluating Eye Movement Event Detection: A Review of the State of the Art

Detecting eye movements in raw eye tracking data is a well-established research area by itself, as well as a common pre-processing step before any subsequent analysis. As in any field, however, progress and successful collaboration can only be achieved provided a shared understanding of the pursued goal. This is often formalised via defining metrics that express the quality of an approach to solving the posed problem. Both the big-picture intuition behind the evaluation strategies and seemingly small implementation details influence the resulting measures, making even studies with outwardly similar procedures essentially incomparable, impeding a common understanding. In this review, we systematically describe and analyse evaluation methods and measures employed in the eye movement event detection field to date. While recently developed evaluation strategies tend to quantify the detector's mistakes at the level of whole eye movement events rather than individual gaze samples, they typically do not separate establishing correspondences between true and predicted events from the quantification of the discovered errors. In our analysis we separate these two steps where possible, enabling their almost arbitrary combinations in an evaluation pipeline. We also present the first large-scale empirical analysis of event matching strategies in the literature, examining these various combinations both in practice and theoretically. We examine the particular benefits and downsides of the evaluation methods, providing recommendations towards more intuitive and informative assessment. We implemented the evaluation strategies on which this work focuses in a single publicly available library: https://github.com/r-zemblys/EM-event-detection-evaluation .