↓ Skip to main content

Gazepath: An eye-tracking analysis tool that accounts for individual differences and data quality

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
Title
Gazepath: An eye-tracking analysis tool that accounts for individual differences and data quality
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, June 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0909-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daan R. van Renswoude, Maartje E. J. Raijmakers, Arnout Koornneef, Scott P. Johnson, Sabine Hunnius, Ingmar Visser

Abstract

Eye-trackers are a popular tool for studying cognitive, emotional, and attentional processes in different populations (e.g., clinical and typically developing) and participants of all ages, ranging from infants to the elderly. This broad range of processes and populations implies that there are many inter- and intra-individual differences that need to be taken into account when analyzing eye-tracking data. Standard parsing algorithms supplied by the eye-tracker manufacturers are typically optimized for adults and do not account for these individual differences. This paper presents gazepath, an easy-to-use R-package that comes with a graphical user interface (GUI) implemented in Shiny (RStudio Inc 2015). The gazepath R-package combines solutions from the adult and infant literature to provide an eye-tracking parsing method that accounts for individual differences and differences in data quality. We illustrate the usefulness of gazepath with three examples of different data sets. The first example shows how gazepath performs on free-viewing data of infants and adults, compared to standard EyeLink parsing. We show that gazepath controls for spurious correlations between fixation durations and data quality in infant data. The second example shows that gazepath performs well in high-quality reading data of adults. The third and last example shows that gazepath can also be used on noisy infant data collected with a Tobii eye-tracker and low (60 Hz) sampling rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 195 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 18%
Student > Master 27 14%
Researcher 22 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 40 21%
Unknown 42 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 68 35%
Engineering 17 9%
Computer Science 13 7%
Neuroscience 10 5%
Linguistics 6 3%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 53 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,536,601
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#566
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,091
of 331,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#13
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.