Abstract
Applications for eye-tracking-particularly in the clinic-are limited by a reliance on dedicated hardware. Here we compare eye-tracking implemented on an Apple iPad Pro 11" (third generation)-using the device's infrared head-tracking and front-facing camera-with a Tobii 4c infrared eye-tracker. We estimated gaze location using both systems while 28 observers performed a variety of tasks. For estimating fixation, gaze position estimates from the iPad were less accurate and precise than the Tobii (mean absolute error of 3.2° ± 2.0° compared with 0.75° ± 0.43°), but fixation stability estimates were correlated across devices (r = 0.44, p < 0.05). For tasks eliciting saccades >1.5°, estimated saccade counts (r = 0.4-0.73, all p < 0.05) were moderately correlated across devices. For tasks eliciting saccades >8° we observed moderate correlations in estimated saccade speed and amplitude (r = 0.4-0.53, all p < 0.05). We did, however, note considerable variation in the vertical component of estimated smooth pursuit speed from the iPad and a catastrophic failure of tracking on the iPad in 5% to 20% of observers (depending on the test). Our findings sound a note of caution to researchers seeking to use iPads for eye-tracking and emphasize the need to properly examine their eye-tracking data to remove artifacts and outliers.