Hi all,
I’m creating this thread as a place to continue the discussion started on March 25th 2025, to determine which standard should be developed first. The Survey study aimed to provide the information to make this decision, and Gemma Arblaster provided this information at the meeting, and will soon be sending round a written summary (which wil eventually be developed into a paper for publication). A couple of points were raised in the meeting which will need to be considered:
- Although it had previously been assumed that standards would be separated based on specific clinical conditions or clinical subdisciplines, some of the respondents to the survey asked for guidance based on eye movement class (e.g. saccades/pursuit etc). We therefore need to decide how ISCET standards will be organised. I suggest we should compile a ‘complete’ list/heirarchy of standards before starting work on any individual standard, so that the context is clear.
- We also discussed whether there should also be general clinical eye tracking guidance (i.e. overarching guidance), in addition to separate, more specific standards.
As a reminder: the reason for focusing on a single standard initially (rather than developing several standards in parallel) is to allow ISCET to learn from the development process and ensure that a wide range of views is considered during its development. Inevitably there are likely to be points of disagreement, so it was decided early on that by focusing on a single standard initially, we can refine our methods for collaboration.
I should add that I use the terms ‘guidance’ and ‘standards’ above interchangeably.
– Matt
Hi, Matt–
Sorry I had to bail last night but it was midnight here. I’ll jump in on nystagmus (surprise!). Might I suggest that for it, there could be parallel descriptive and quantitative streams? My experience in doing clinical testing by referral (not being a clinician myself) for INS is that most clinicians want diagnosis, null location(s) if INS, latent component present/absent, periodicity present/absent, etc. But it’s possible that waveform parameters like intensity, foveation, and the like might be wanted if they become more readily available. Ages ago (during COVID, I think) I started writing up what I put into my reports to clinicians, largely derived from my years working with Lou Dell’Osso and Bob Daroff. I’d be happy to resurrect some of that if it would be of interest.
I got the email from Robert Alexander about nystagmus being an initial area to try and standardise, so I’d like to confirm that I’d be interested in being on the subcommittee. I’m not a clinician so I won’t put my hand up to chair it.
I’d also be interested in being on the subcommittee.
Hi, we performed some studies on idiopathic forms of downbeat nystagmus and the treatment by 4-aminopyridines. It would be great to join the subcommittee.
Greetings Andreas