Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add processing module for Webgazer data #66

Open
miggol opened this issue Sep 9, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Add processing module for Webgazer data #66

miggol opened this issue Sep 9, 2022 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@miggol
Copy link
Contributor

miggol commented Sep 9, 2022

Data coming in from jsPsych's Webgazer plugin comes in a rather obtuse JSON package per trial. It would be of great assistance to researchers if it resembled more common eye-tracking data formats.

Something like this:

Item Participant PosX PosY Time
Item Participant PosX PosY Time
Item Participant PosX PosY Time
Item Participant PosX PosY Time

Of course, the datastore should always provide raw data on demand. This processed format would be a supplementary function when Webgazer data is detected. Some basic modularity to meet future processing needs is desirable.

@miggol miggol self-assigned this Sep 9, 2022
@tymees tymees changed the title Add processing module for Webgazaer data Add processing module for Webgazer data Sep 9, 2022
@maartenuni
Copy link
Contributor

maartenuni commented Sep 9, 2022

You might have a look whether this is something up the sleeve of iSpector: https://github.com/UiL-OTS-labs/iSpector . I've found many difficulties of finding a "default" format for eyetracking movement. Commonly the main research grade eye tracker use/support there own stuff with their own rather expensive software.
The current use of iSpector is to turn some format, into a eyelink (SR-research) ascii format, with some added metadata, so Fixation understands it, then the final analysis is done with fixation. This is at least the approach we use with Zep and the SMI eyetracker.

@tymees
Copy link
Member

tymees commented Sep 9, 2022

What's the reasoning behind making it a feature of the datastore, instead of making it a simple standalone script for example?
(Or integrating the format in iSpector like Maarten suggests).

@miggol
Copy link
Contributor Author

miggol commented Sep 9, 2022

@tymees People already use the datastore, and it's the only place where this script would ever be used. So it makes sense to integrate it.

@maartenuni Thanks for mentioning iSpector, I will try to use the same output format where possible.

It might be cool to add this to iSpector as well, but once again literally the only place that this specific jspsych+webgazer json input format would ever come from is this datastore. So I would actually kind of see it as unnecessary complexity added to iSpector.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants