Evaluating the Tobii Pro Glasses 2 and 3 in static and dynamic conditions

Journal Article (2023)
Author(s)

V. Onkhar (TU Delft - Human-Robot Interaction)

Dimitra Dodou (TU Delft - Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technology)

J. C.F. De Winter (TU Delft - Human-Robot Interaction)

Research Group
Human-Robot Interaction
Copyright
© 2023 V. Onkhar, D. Dodou, J.C.F. de Winter
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02173-7
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2023
Language
English
Copyright
© 2023 V. Onkhar, D. Dodou, J.C.F. de Winter
Research Group
Human-Robot Interaction
Issue number
5
Volume number
56 (2024)
Pages (from-to)
4221-4238
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Over the past few decades, there have been significant developments in eye-tracking technology, particularly in the domain of mobile, head-mounted devices. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the accuracy of these eye-trackers during static and dynamic tasks. In light of this, we evaluated the performance of two widely used devices: Tobii Pro Glasses 2 and Tobii Pro Glasses 3. A total of 36 participants engaged in tasks under three dynamicity conditions. In the “seated with a chinrest” trial, only the eyes could be moved; in the “seated without a chinrest” trial, both the head and the eyes were free to move; and during the walking trial, participants walked along a straight path. During the seated trials, participants’ gaze was directed towards dots on a wall by means of audio instructions, whereas in the walking trial, participants maintained their gaze on a bullseye while walking towards it. Eye-tracker accuracy was determined using computer vision techniques to identify the target within the scene camera image. The findings showed that Tobii 3 outperformed Tobii 2 in terms of accuracy during the walking trials. Moreover, the results suggest that employing a chinrest in the case of head-mounted eye-trackers is counterproductive, as it necessitates larger eye eccentricities for target fixation, thereby compromising accuracy compared to not using a chinrest, which allows for head movement. Lastly, it was found that participants who reported higher workload demonstrated poorer eye-tracking accuracy. The current findings may be useful in the design of experiments that involve head-mounted eye-trackers.