EN
Wearable eye trackers serve a clear purpose. They’re built for mobility, and highly useful when the research context demands natural movement and minimal setup.
But in many applied studies, mobility isn’t the first priority. Precision is.
Simulators, vehicles, control rooms: these environments come with structure, constraints, and tight technical requirements. And in those settings, wearables often run into challenges they weren’t designed to handle.
Let’s take a closer look at when and why that happens, what technical factors matter most in high-demand research, and how to choose a system that’s built for the conditions you’re working in.
In a lab, it’s easy to assume your eye tracker is doing its job – and in a static setup, it probably is. But once movement enters the equation, everything changes.
Simulators, cockpits and moving vehicles introduce a different kind of complexity. It’s not just the participant that’s in motion. It’s also the seat shifting, the platform vibrating, the facial muscles reacting, the helmet pressing – all of which can subtly knock a head-mounted tracker out of alignment. And once it slips, even slightly, the data starts to drift.
Some of the most common issues include:
Tracker slippage. Contact with a seat back, helmet, or even subtle facial expressions can cause small shifts in position – enough to throw off calibration.
Calibration drift. Movement or posture changes mid-session can gradually misalign the system from where the participant is actually looking.
Motion artifacts. Vibration and acceleration introduce jitter that wearable systems often can’t fully compensate for.
AOI misalignment. In fixed-interface setups like cockpits or control panels, small tracking errors can mean the difference between a glance to the instrument cluster and a miss entirely.
None of these issues make a study impossible. But they make the margin for error a whole lot smaller, especially when your research hinges on milliseconds or centimeter-level gaze precision.
The kinds of problems researchers run into in motion-heavy setups – slippage, jitter, drift – often come down to technical limitations. In structured environments, even small gaps in sampling rate, resolution, or tracking stability can undermine the data.
Here’s where the difference really shows:
Sampling rate: Fast tasks need fast tracking. If you’re measuring reaction times or trying to capture rapid saccades, a 60 Hz system might miss the transitions entirely. Higher-frequency trackers (250 Hz and up) provide the granularity you need for accurate timing and movement analysis.
Camera resolution and field of view: In complex setups like cockpits or control rooms, participants don’t just look straight ahead. You need clear data across a wide visual range, and systems with narrow scene cameras or limited coverage often miss critical areas.
Stability and robustness: A slight shift might not matter much in an open-ended field study. But if your AOI is a dashboard button or a 3 cm warning light, even minor drift can render your data useless. In structured setups, the margin for error shrinks fast.
If your study depends on precision, these are the constraints that matter. The more structured the environment, the more important it is to know what your system can actually handle.
Remote eye tracking can solve many of the problems that come up in structured environments. Realtime Technologies (RTI) learned this firsthand when they set out to improve how gaze data aligned with events inside their driving simulator.
Their original setup required researchers to manually sync eye tracking data with simulation events. It worked for static objects, but struggled once anything started moving. Tracking gaze on dynamic – like a passing car or pedestrian – wasn’t reliable, and the process was time-consuming to correct.
By integrating Smart Eye’s remote eye tracking system directly into the SimObserver platform, RTI automated that process. Gaze data could now be synchronized in real time with simulation events, without the need for manual correction. Researchers could track where participants were looking – including on cockpit displays and static scene elements – without stopping to recalibrate or remap the data.
If you’re deciding between a wearable and a remote eye tracking system, start with the environment and the kind of data your study actually needs.
Here’s a quick gut check:
Wearables tend to make sense when your study involves:
Free movement through physical spaces
Natural interactions in unstructured environments
Mobile interfaces or real-world tasks
A focus on ecological validity over pinpoint accuracy
Remote systems are often the better fit when your setup involves:
Fixed AOIs, like dashboards, control panels, or warning lights
Multi-screen environments with broad visual coverage
High-speed tasks that require high-frequency sampling
Simulators, cockpits, or any setup with vibration and motion
Live data streaming for real-time integration with other systems, using fast protocols like UDP/TCP
Every eye tracking system has trade-offs. The key is knowing what yours can handle – and what it can’t – before your data starts rolling in. And getting that match right from the start makes everything else a lot easier.
Wondering whether a remote eye tracking system is the right fit for your setup?
Get in touch to learn more about Smart Eye’s solutions for structured, motion-heavy research – and how to make sure your next study starts off on the right foot.
