• Two reported only ’chin rest’ (of course, this could be shorthand for ‘chin and head rest’; we can’t be sure).
• One reported only ‘head rest’—again, this may include a chin rest too, but it’s unclear.
• Seven reported a chin and (fore)head rest.
• One reported a chin and forehead rest and temple pads
• One reported a chin rest with temple pads (they didn’t mention a forehead rest)
• One used a bite bar (this was the only study we looked at in a non-clinical population; it was from Michele Rucci’s lab). While this is unlikely to be necessary for a clinical population, I think it would be wise for ISCET standards committees to keep in mind the methods used in physiological studies. In fact, I suggest including input from an expert in fixational eye movement physiology to sense-check the guideline development; even though we are only looking to measure deviations from normal (e.g. excessive square-wave jerks, etc), we need to be clear on what ’normal’ is.

As discussed in previous meetings, I have prepared a consolidated draft covering ISCET’s proposed General Membership framework together with the associated Ethics & Compliance documents.

This draft is shared for structured review and feedback at this stage. The aim is to formalize ISCET’s membership and governance framework in a clear, transparent, and sustainable manner as the society continues to develop.

I welcome your comments and suggestions. If no substantial revisions are raised, the documents will proceed to website publication and the launch of the formal (non-paid) membership application process.

The draft is available at the link below.
Please share all comments directly in this forum thread to ensure structured discussion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16b1jUavNyAJHwgrEtjDIkAaFISf7gnN0BpIU8i0PR6w/edit?usp=sharing

Kind regards,
Rasha S. Moustafa

On the one hand, a 'fixation' protocol needs to be agnostic to the clinical condition (so that it can be used in contexts beyond nystagmus). On the other hand, if we only produce a basic fixation protocol with no guidance on how to apply it in nystagmus, then we aren't really any closer to clinical standardisation (the point of ISCET guidelines is to ensure patients receive a similar standard of care across clinics).

I would therefore like to propose a 'layered' approach, with the nystagmus subcommittee producing two distinct outputs:

1. A 'core' fixation protocol, which does not mention nystagmus, and is generally applicable across a range of clinical contexts. This core protocol could then be reused in other conditions, as necessary.
2. Nystagmus-specific guidance, which specifies the particular viewing conditions / gaze angles etc over which to apply the fixation protocol. If the group deem it necessary, then other 'core' protocols (e.g. OKN/saccades etc) could also be referenced in this layer.

With this approach we would end up with a set of 'core' protocols for each eye movement system (fixation, OKN, saccades, etc), and then a 'higher level' set of disease-specific protocols (nystagmus, Huntington's disease, PSP, etc) which refer to the core protocols.

Would be interested to hear others thoughts on this approach, and I would love to hear suggestions for alternatives or refinements to this. And, so far as is appropriate, we should probably try to replicate the structure of ISCEV protocols, so their guidance will be especially helpful.

Rasha has asked me to point out that both ECEM and ETRA are currently seeking abstracts for symposia. If anybody is planning to attend either of these and might be interested in facilitating a presence for ISCET, please let us know. Rasha will keep an eye on this forum post for responses.

–Matt

https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-society-for-clinical-eye-tracking-iscet/?viewAsMember=true

• Be a clinician
• Be willing and able to arrange and chair meetings
• Be willing and able to act as corresponding author on the published guideline

To put yourself forward to chair the subcommittee, please post one paragraph below outlining your relevant experience, no later than Tuesday 7th October. A link will then be provided to all subcommittee members to vote.

Hello,

I am writing on behalf of the International Society for Clinical Eye Tracking (ISCET): https://clinicaleyetracking.org/

We have developed a survey to help us understand how eye trackers are currently used in clinical practice and explore future clinical guideline development.

This survey can be completed by individuals involved in clinical eye tracking or other organisations (such as professional bodies, manufacturers or other stakeholders). We would like to gather as many individual responses as possible, so would appreciate you sharing this survey link with anyone who may be involved with eye tracking clinically. 

Please find a link to the survey here: http://clinicaleyetracking.org/survey

If you require any further information, please contact Dr Gemma Arblaster and the ISCET survey working group (g.arblaster@sheffield.ac.uk)

Regards,

<...>

I’m Benedikt, project lead for Perceptual.AI. We are currently preparing an application for the EXIST Start-Up Grant (pre-founding phase) to build a startup initiative aiming to make eye-tracking analysis easier and more affordable - especially for researchers, clinicians, and teams with limited resources. We have not yet founded a company; this is part of the application and preparation phase to understand the need.

Your hands-on experience in ET can provide invaluable insight into what features truly matter in practice.

What the project is about:

• No-code workflows: upload → cleaning → analysis → visualization
• AI-powered analytics: from basic stats up to predictive modelling
• Flexible rental of high-end eye-tracking hardware
• Subscription licensing, cancel anytime

Would you help by filling out this survey?

Survey: https://tally.so/r/nPZzqd

If you’re interested, here’s a preview with mockups and designs:

https://perceptual-intelligence.org

(Please note: just a prototype / early designs, not the fully working platform yet.)

If you do, I’d love to hear specifically:

• Which parts of eye-tracking are currently too painful (cost? software? hardware? time?)
• What features you wish existed
• What price models would work for small labs / occasional users

You can optionally leave your email if you want early beta access or more info.

Thanks for your time. Your feedback will help us build something that serves this community well.

Best regards,

Benedikt

info@perceptual-intelligence.org

Two things to bring up:

1. Formal membership

In the last meeting (see start of recording June 6th 2025), Rasha brought up the question again of allowing people to formally register as ISCET 'members'. There was no objection to doing so now (Amanda, Robert and I were present from the Organising Committee), so long as this not a paid-for membership (at the moment our only cost is the website hosting, which I have got covered until March 2027 via my research sabbatical). As I understand it, the benefits of formal registration are:

1. It allows ISCET to describe its membership in terms of numbers/locations/professions (which currently we can only do vaguely based on the number of people signed up to the email distribution list)
2. At some point (i.e. if we are not fully able to fund ISCET through grants), we would be able to easily reach members to request payment of an annual fee to cover ongoing costs in exchange for continued membership. (Ironically though, moving to a formal membership may necessitate the use of a membership management system such as WildApricot, which would actually increase our costs — so this will need careful thought.)

There are three questions that we should answer before going ahead:

1. What are our obligations with regards to data security (i.e. where are the data held, who is responsible for it?) We will need to make sure we understand this fully. If this would require us to use a platform like WildApricot, can we afford to do this right now? I personally don't think now is the right time to ask members to pay for membership, so would suggest we only do this if we can do it for free.
2. What data will we hold about members? How much of this should be optional?
3. Who will organise this in the long-run? Rasha has offered to handle this for now, but I wonder if in time we would want a dedicated membership secretary.

2. Deciding when to move to a formal (voted) organising committee

Since the formation of the society, we have said that our roles as the Organising Committee (including my own role) are time-limited, and that when the society is more established and self-sufficient, there will be a formal process for electing members to the Organising Committee. It will need to be decided (by the wider group) whether current Organising Committee members will be able to put themselves forward again, should they wish.

I think it would be wise to now determine when that time will be, to avoid it being open-ended. In my view, a good time would be following the publication of the first ISCET guideline — please let me know your thoughts on this proposal. We don't know exactly how long the guideline development process will take, but at a guess I'd expect this to be roughly a year away. In the nearly 2½ years since ISCET was founded we have seen a lot of growth and ISCET is now widely accepted as the professional and standards body for clinical eyetracking, so we have achieved a lot in terms of bringing the society to this point from nothing. Having a defined end-point may also prompt us to think about anything else we would like to achieve during our tenure as a committee.

In other news, I have split the 'About' page on the website so there is now a new page ('People') which now lists each of the subcommittees, since I realised these were not currently recorded anywhere.

All the best,

Matt

ISCEV would like to propose a joint collaboration to write and publish the "ISCET and ISCEV Guideline for Clinical Eye Tracking for Nystagmus Evaluation" (title to be confirmed). As a joint collaboration, the Guideline development would follow ISCEV's established pathway, with peer review provided by scrutiny and feedback from membership of both societies, and submission for publication dependent on favourable votes from both Societies' membership. The ISCEV membership voted in favour of the collaboration at the membership meeting on 27 June 2025.

The proposed writing committee would be those ISCET members who volunteer for the nystagmus guideline and ISCEV members with clinical ET expertise who volunteer for the nystagmus guideline.

The proposed process would provide a home and an update process for the guideline in ISCEV's journal, Documenta Ophthalmologica, but permanence is not implied; the collaboration should last only as long as both parties are content.

Many thanks

Ruth Hamilton - ISCEV President and ISCET volunteer for the nystagmus guideline