Quantitative Biology > Quantitative Methods
[Submitted on 21 Jan 2020 (v1), revised 1 Apr 2020 (this version, v2), latest version 13 May 2020 (v3)]
Title:Brief Communication: A Re-Examination of the Eye Movement Data used by Hooge et al (2018): "Is human classification by experienced untrained observers a gold standard in fixation detection?"
View PDFAbstract:Hooge et al. 2018 asked the question: "Is human classification by experienced untrained observers a gold standard in fixation detection?" They conclude the answer is no. I have had a close look at their data and their report, and I find that both the data itself, the method of presentation of the data to the human raters, and the analysis of agreement statistics are problematic. I think that data used to address this important question should be very high quality, and the method of presentation of the data should be optimized. Alternatively, the title should be changed to: "Is human classification by experienced untrained observers a gold standard in fixation detection when data quality is very poor?" Numerous examples of various types of low quality data are presented herein. In addition, it appears that, by including missing data in the data submitted for assessment of agreement statistics, Hooge et al (2018) have made a serious mistake. Also, the treatment of some inter-fixation intervals as saccades that might have been identified by human experts is completely unjustified. The results regarding these saccades are without merit or meaning.
Submission history
From: Lee Friedman [view email][v1] Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:59:50 UTC (2,240 KB)
[v2] Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:24:59 UTC (2,568 KB)
[v3] Wed, 13 May 2020 12:04:12 UTC (3,139 KB)
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.