Date/time
Wednesday 1st March 2023 at 0700 PST (US Pacific) / 1000 EST (US East Coast) / 1500 GMT (UK) / 1600 CET (Central Europe) / 2030 IST (India).
Chaired by Matt J Dunn (Cardiff University).
Agenda
- Welcome and background/purpose of this meeting
- President of ISCEV (Ruth Hamilton) to outline the role ISCEV plays in developing guidance for clinical visual electrophysiology
- Is there a need for ISCET to exist?
- (…if yes):
- which clinical tests would benefit from published guidance?
- decide on format and arrangement of future meetings
- arrange a second meeting to suit time zones inclusive of Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan etc.
- is “eye tracking” an appropriate term? (item to be presented by Zoï Kapoula)
Meeting recording
Attendees
70 people attended the meeting, including clinicians, researchers and manufacturers.
Notes
- The group voted overwhelmingly to form a society (39 in favour, 1 against, 30 did not cast a vote). At this stage, nothing else is formally decided (name, remit, scope etc)
- The following points/suggestions were discussed:
- ISCET standards should not constrain clinicians to having to use any one manufacturer or model of eye tracker. However, several attendees expressed a wish to define minimum criteria that eye trackers must posess to be deployable in different clinical scenarios.
- Cambridge Research Systems pointed out that manufacturers are sometimes constrained in terms of not allowing users to adjust individual settings, e.g. where a setting change could go unnoticed but lead to changes in patient outcomes. Therefore, any ‘ISCET standards’ may need to be built-in as a package, rather than tweaked by users.
- Most eye trackers currently are not formally certified for clinical use. One of the potential benefits of ISCET could be to demonstrate to manufacturers that there is a demand for clinical certification.
- Standards are likely to cover not just the eye tracking itself but also monitor/display specifications, as well as associated clinical information (e.g. refraction in the case of ophthalmology)
- There are many relevant clinical subdisciplines, and attempting to define standards for them all at once may be an overwhelming task. It may be worth focusing initially on a single clinical condition and using lessons learned in the development of that guideline to inform development of other subdisciplines / conditions. Each discipline would likely require a different focus group with relevant expertise.
- Standards should consider (and possibly focus on) paediatric populations, for whom eye tracking methods often need to be adaptable
- Consider whether ‘standards’ or ‘guidance’ would be most appropriate term for ISCET to use
- Consider whether the term ‘eye tracking’ is appropriate (Zoï Kapoula made the case that it is perjorative)
- Future meetings will be hosted using Google Meet (as it is a decentralised platform)
Next meeting
The next meeting will replicate this one, but at a time to suit Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan etc, to understand the views of people who could not make it to this meeting.
Chat
15:04:22 From Chrystalina Antoniades : Can everyone mute their microphones please?15:04:38 From Arzu Çöltekin : admins can mute others I think
15:27:06 From Liasis, Alkiviades : I was wondering if the standards would include any post processing analysis criteria. Data from most manufacturers is analyzed employing inhouse software that people may not have access to.
15:30:00 From Cathy Williams : I will have to catch up with the rest of the video later- thank you Matt for organising and Ruth for explaining ISCEV.
15:35:00 From Amanda Douglass : Would we want to be able to independently validate as a society?
15:35:04 From Ravi Purohit : Thank you Matt for facilitating. Although my background is nystagmus I think a focus to classify standards for less complex eye movements should be done first. With regards to devices, I think that being device agnostic is good but thresholding standards for disease groups would be very useful. For example minimum resolution for nystagmus
15:35:08 From Hans-Peter Kurz : Will Stimuli / display specs be included or excluded?15:36:23 From Hans-Peter Kurz : Will patient refraction be included or excluded in the standard?
15:44:51 From Dominic Burdon : I think standards certainly would help centres set-up clinics for eye tracking assessment and will be a good starting point for early career clinicians. We feel the main issue for departments in the UK is not necessarily knowing how to use an eye tracker or what to assess but more how to interpret the waveform. So the lack of training for this and lack of stated competencies can pose challenges for growth in eye tracking use.
15:46:34 From Onyeka : Reacted to “I think standards ce…” with 👍🏽
15:48:05 From Arzu Çöltekin : eye movement analysis? (rather than tracking, which puts the technology in focus)
15:48:41 From Fatima : Protocols and standards need to be flexible to accommodate the recording of eye movements in children and babies. In visual electrophysiology we have a paediatric subdivision in order to take this into account.
15:48:58 From Larry Abel : SR-Research calls itself an eye-tracking company, for one example.
15:49:10 From Ruth Hamilton : Reacted to “Protocols and standa…” with 👍
15:49:15 From Onyeka : Reacted to “Protocols and standa…” with 👍🏽
15:49:29 From Dominic Burdon : Reacted to “Protocols and standa…” with 👍
15:49:54 From Irving, Elizabeth : don’t think you should use “video” in the term as not all devices are video based
15:50:00 From Janine Johnston : I am using the term video oculography, but the term ocular motor may be more inclusive.
15:50:09 From Bhavana kolli : Reacted to “Protocols and standa…” with 👍
15:51:16 From Harshal Kubavat (Nystagmus Network) : If appropriate, Google?
15:51:21 From Harshal Kubavat (Nystagmus Network) : Workplace and meets
15:52:32 From James blundell : “Brain tracking” is typically categorised via its respective methodology. i.e. EEG, fMRI, MEG, PET, fNIRS. Using video oculography to describe its form of “eyetracking” is probably suitable.
15:55:19 From Rasha Moustafa : yes we need an emailing list please
15:55:41 From jgmCD6 : Reacted to “yes we need an email…” with 👍
15:55:43 From Arzu Çöltekin : Reacted to “yes we need an email…” with 👍
15:55:52 From James blundell : Reacted to “Protocols and standa…” with 👍
15:57:07 From José P. Ossandón : Reacted to “yes we need an email…” with 👍
15:57:57 From Sian Handley : Agreed – paediatric work isn’t just nystagmus
16:00:53 From Ruth Hamilton : Agree, Veeral – in fact, all ISCEV Standards *encourage* testing beyond the Standard
16:00:55 From Matt J Dunn : https://sites.google.com/view/clinicaleyetracking/home
16:01:02 From Arzu Çöltekin : Reacted to “https://sites.google…” with 👍
16:01:22 From Vijay’s iPhone : Thanks Mat
16:01:22 From Arzu Çöltekin : Thank you Matt & co – have a nice evening everyone. I’ll be happy to hear more from all of you.
16:01:52 From Rosie Clark : Thanks Matt!
16:02:25 From Doug Barrett : Thanks for organising Matt – useful and interesting meeting!
16:04:22 From Onyeka : Thanks Matt, Ruth and everyone
16:04:28 From Harshal Kubavat (Nystagmus Network) : Thanks for organizing Matt!
16:04:33 From Larry Abel : Thanks, Matt!
16:04:34 From Fatima : Thank you Matt
16:04:39 From Katia Ripamonti : Thank you Matt!
16:04:39 From jgmCD6 : thank you
16:04:40 From James blundell : Thanks Matt