[robustpupil] Re: Pupil Movement
- From: patrick <drlo@xxxxxxx>
- To: robustpupil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:24:55 -0700
Thanks Daniel, for this information.
Excellent research and suggestion.
After reading what the company offers from its website, it doesn't appear
that they have applied their technology on visual field screening or
analysis.
Like you said, perhaps their technology is too expensive for general use.
Eventually, I would imagine animation technology could bring our design to
reality.
For example, asking the subject to 'catch a fly' (or mosquito) while an old
one that was 'caught' just died and disappeared.
Perhaps employing a conventional hand device much like playing video games
at the same time?
Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Yule" <daniel.yule@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <robustpupil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: [robustpupil] Pupil Movement
I have a question that maybe someone can answer:
Does the eye move slower vertically than horizontally? I've done some
research (on myself) to indicate this might be the case. However, it
might also be just that there isn't as much vertical room to move, so
although the eye moves just as fast, it doesn't move as far, and thus
my test doesn't detect it.
Also, and this is a rather unfortunate thing, I think we might have
been beaten. While I was researching the answer to this question, I
found the following website: http://www.smi.de/
This company (SMI) has a device (called the iView X Hi-Speed 1250)
which tracks eye movement at 1250 Hz (ours operates at 30 Hz). It
also has a built in headrest and so on. The included software can
detect eye position AND, from what I could see, do a visual field
test. If their claims are correct (and I have found no reason to
disbelieve them) we are beaten very very hard. They have been in
operation for over 15 years, and as such have some pretty awesome
analysis modules and so on. It seems that they are using the same
technology as we are, except they have a decade and a half of a
headstart.
That said, we have the following advantages over them:
-Cost. A machine that big and that precise must cost a fortune,
probably almost as much as a Humphrey's machine. (This is a guess. I
have no idea how much they cost, and I don't think I should be the one
to find out.) At the very least, the set-up requires two desktop
computers, one of which I would assume must be pretty powerful to do
the kinds of calculations at the kinds of speeds they claim.
-Specificity. Their machine is designed for eyetracking in general,
and although I saw several images of various types of optometric and
and opthalmologic tests, the program looks fairly comprehensive, and
therefore difficult to use. Ours is designed for lab technicians to
be able to use easily, and with little to no training. I also doubt
that this company has specific output for a Visual Field test. It
looks like their main focus is information on how the pupil is moving.
It seems to me that the target for SMI is for institutions with lots
of money. They expect these people to buy a machine of theirs and use
it for research or whatever. HOWEVER, no hospital or optometrist's
office is going to buy an expensive machine that doesn't even do a
visual field test very well.
So, the question is, what do we do?
-Daniel
This message was sent from the Robust Pupil Mailing list at freelists.org.
To respond to this message, send mail to robustpupil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx For
help, please email the administrator at daniel.yule@xxxxxxxxxx
This message was sent from the Robust Pupil Mailing list at freelists.org. To
respond to this message, send mail to robustpupil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx For help,
please email the administrator at daniel.yule@xxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
