跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.32915 · v2

Eye Tracking Signal Quality Evaluation: Meta Quest Pro vs HTC VIVE Pro Eye vs HTC VIVE Focus Vision

首次提交 2026-10-24 01:17
版本更新 2026-10-29 06:01
雷达观测 2026-10-30 11:25
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Gaze research in virtual reality needs eye trackers of known error. Thirty participants completed the same protocol on the Meta Quest Pro (QP), HTC VIVE Pro Eye (PE) and HTC VIVE Focus Vision (FV); to our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of the FV eye tracker. In a random-saccade task, median participant mean error was 1.04° on QP, 1.50° on PE and 2.41° on FV, which remained least accurate after linear recalibration. In a later block with a darker background, PE error rose by 0.70°. FV samples were positively correlated: dispersion was 9.8 times the sample-to-sample root mean square. The device clocks showed losses that mean error hides. QP paused for up to 6.04 s, and FV skipped single samples. During instructed eye closures, QP flagged every sample valid while gaze moved 9.74°. Evaluations should report repeated timestamps, loss composition on the device clock and validity during eye closures.

作者备注:14 pages, 6 figures; supplementary material (16 pages) included. Submitted to ETRA 2027. Data: https://hdl.handle.net/10877/25342 ; code: https://hdl.handle.net/10877/25343

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-10-29 06:01 · 最新观测版本

Eye Tracking Signal Quality Evaluation: Meta Quest Pro vs HTC VIVE Pro Eye vs HTC VIVE Focus Vision

Gaze research in virtual reality needs eye trackers of known error. Thirty participants completed the same protocol on the Meta Quest Pro (QP), HTC VIVE Pro Eye (PE) and HTC VIVE Focus Vision (FV); to our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of the FV eye tracker. In a random-saccade task, median participant mean error was 1.04° on QP, 1.50° on PE and 2.41° on FV, which remained least accurate after linear recalibration. In a later block with a darker background, PE error rose by 0.70°. FV samples were positively correlated: dispersion was 9.8 times the sample-to-sample root mean square. The device clocks showed losses that mean error hides. QP paused for up to 6.04 s, and FV skipped single samples. During instructed eye closures, QP flagged every sample valid while gaze moved 9.74°. Evaluations should report repeated timestamps, loss composition on the device clock and validity during eye closures.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗