Written by Milica Kovac (Product Manager) and Jelisaveta Milovanovic (Senior Data Analyst) at EyeSee.

This is the first installment of the series focusing on eye tracking solutions and their validation – stay tuned for more!

It’s no secret that market research has had a serious glow-up in the past years and with it new methods keep emerging. Eye tracking, although not entirely novel, has been a major area of innovation. However, with a plethora of commercially available solutions comes a familiar challenge – how does one navigate all the options and make a sound business choice? What makes a ‘good’ eye tracking method to begin with?

For a little over a year, we’ve set out to test every relevant eye tracking tech. Based on market demand and sophistication, eye tracking tech worth your time can be sorted into 4 main groups:

• head-mounted glasses
• screen-based portable eye tracking system
• smartphone eye tracking
• web-based desktop eye-tracking

So, let’s gaze at what we’ve uncovered (pun entirely intended):

Head-mounted glasses designed for testing in any real-world setting
(Commercial eye-tracker market leader)

PROS: You can test in any real-world setting just by putting on the glasses and going to a real-life store / or lab-store. It also allows a high sampling frequency which yields good data quality results.

CONS: The technology is expensive, and as such, it is not accessible for remote testing and is not scalable. The calibration procedure requires the presence of an examiner next to the respondent as well as high-tech requirements, like using special markers for the calibration procedure.

Portable eye tracking system for screen-based eye tracking (EyeLink Portable Duo)

PROS: It is a video-based eye-tracker with one of the best accuracy and precision currently available. With a sampling frequency up to 2000Hz, it gives high-quality data results and can be applied in more rigorous areas than marketing – academic research can serve as a “ground truth.”

CONS: It is a costly technology that requires testing in a “lab” with controlled conditions – lighting and equipment position is crucial, and the head stabilizer should preferably be used. It is not accessible for remote testing, and as such, it is not scalable. The calibration procedure requires the presence of an examiner next to the respondent and high tech requirements such as using special equipment for testing, a host PC next to the display PC, etc.

Smartphone eye tracking technology for remote research studies (Oculid)

PROS: It is easily accessible with minimal tech requirements – only some phone memory for installing the app, good lighting and minimal head movements. It is scalable and can be used in remote conditions by virtually anyone who has a smartphone. It requires a simple calibration and can be used in fast and global studies.

CONS: There are limitations in the stimuli type – you can’t test shelf studies via mobile. The validation data is still not available, but in our experience, it yields good enough results for testing in a market research context, especially having that mind it is mobile-based.

Web-based desktop eye-tracking technology for remote research studies (EyeSee)

PROS: The tech is easily accessible with not a lot of requirements – again, only some PC memory for installing the app, good lighting and minimal head movements. It is scalable and can be used in remote conditions by anyone with a PC, enabling fast and global studies. It has a simple calibration process and ensures ethical consciousness – the app erases itself from the PC once the test is done.

CONS: A lower sampling frequency than external device eye-trackers. For desktop ET, there are limitations in terms of testing stimuli that are too complex.

Ok, how should you pick the ‘ideal’ eye tracking solution for you?

With the commercial accessibility of the third-generation eye trackers, both researchers and brands have gained a quite straightforward way of gathering insights. But, while the current eye tracking options on the market aren’t endless, picking the right one for your research needs might seem challenging. So, here is a set of criteria to consider for your particular research needs:

All of this can affect data quality, so conducting thorough data cleaning is an important step. What we have noticed is that most tech does not have the option to clean the data, whereas our website-based solution allows both manual and automatic cleaning – and top of that, we accept 50% of the tested sample to secure the highest validity and precision of the obtained insights.  

Verdict

Our endeavor led to an assessment that the desktop and mobile apps are, generally speaking, convenient and optimized for market research studies. This is especially true for those that need to be done quickly and with numerous stimuli. App-based remote eye tracking is also easier for respondents to use, ensuring a larger study sample and more valid insights. After all, it’s worth remembering that scalability and predictive power are what ROI dreams are made of.

If this article sparked your interest in the latest developments in behavioral insights, make sure to check out this blog about attention retention (during polarizing times such as global crises).