RETRACTED ARTICLE: Eye tracking: empirical foundations for a minimal reporting guideline
Kenneth Holmqvist, Saga Lee Örbom, Ignace T. C. Hooge, Diederick C. Niehorster, Robert G. Alexander, Richard Andersson, Jeroen S. Benjamins, Pieter Blignaut, Anne-Marie Brouwer, Lewis L. Chuang, Kirsten A. Dalrymple, Denis Drieghe, Matt J. Dunn, Ulrich Ettinger, Susann Fiedler, Tom Foulsham, Jos N. van der Geest, Dan Witzner Hansen, Samuel B. Hutton, Enkelejda Kasneci, Alan Kingstone, Paul C. Knox, Ellen M. Kok, Helena Lee, Joy Yeonjoo Lee, Jukka Leppänen, Stephen L. Macknik, Päivi Majaranta, Susana Martínez‐Conde, Antje Nuthmann, Marcus Nyström, Jacob Lund Orquin, Jorge Otero‐Millan, Soon Young Park, Stanislav Popelka, Frank A. Proudlock, Frank Renkewitz, Austin Roorda, Michael Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Bonita Sharif, Frederick Shic, Mark Shovman, Mervyn G. Thomas, Ward Venrooij, Raimondas Zemblys, Roy S. Hessels
Abstract
In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section "An empirically based minimal reporting guideline").