Eye Tracking and Visual-Evoked Potentials

The study “Visual cortical area contributions to the transient, multifocal and steady-state VEP: A forward model-informed analysis” by Mohr, Geuzebroek, and Kelly provides a comprehensive investigation into the anatomical sources of visual-evoked potentials (VEPs). While the primary focus of the research was on delineating the contributions of visual cortical areas (V1, V2, and V3) to different VEP signals, an underlying yet crucial aspect of the methodology was the consistent and careful application of eye-tracking technology. This case study highlights the indispensable role of eye tracking in ensuring the validity and reliability of the VEP data presented in the paper.

In electrophysiological studies involving visual stimuli, maintaining a stable gaze is paramount. Any involuntary eye movements, such as saccades or blinks, can introduce significant artifacts into the electroencephalogram (EEG) data, thereby confounding the neural responses being measured. The researchers in this study acknowledged this challenge and implemented rigorous eye-tracking protocols to mitigate these effects.

Eye Tracking and Visual-Evoked Potentials Methodology

The participants were instructed to maintain a steady eye gaze on a central fixation cross throughout the various visual stimulation protocols (transient VEP, pattern-pulse mfVEP, and SSVEP). To actively monitor and control for eye movements, a Tower-mounted Eyelink 1000 Plus system was used, recording at 1000 Hz. This system was complemented by four electrooculogram sensors (EOGs) placed around the left eye to monitor blinks and eye gaze.

For the transient VEP condition, trials were rejected if saccades or blinks occurred within a critical window of -50 ms to 200 ms surrounding stimulus onset. This strict criterion ensured that the measured C1 component, an early VEP signal, was not contaminated by eye-movement-related noise. While trials for multifocal VEP (mfVEP) and steady-state VEP (SSVEP) were not removed based on eye-tracking data due to their continuous stimulation streams, the researchers still quantified fixation performance for these protocols. They calculated the average number of saccades per trial and assessed gaze stability by measuring the interquartile range (IQR) of horizontal and vertical gaze deviation during stimulus presentation. Importantly, they confirmed that there was no systematic bias in gaze behavior across stimulus locations, which is critical for studies exploring retinotopic variations.

Absence of Systematic Gaze Biases

The use of eye tracking in this research paper underscores its importance in neuroscientific studies of VEPs. By precisely monitoring and accounting for eye movements, the researchers were able to:

• Ensure data integrity: Minimizing artifacts allowed for clearer and more accurate neural recordings.
• Enhance experimental control: Confirming stable fixation provided confidence that visual stimuli were consistently presented to the intended retinotopic locations.
• Strengthen scientific conclusions: By demonstrating the absence of systematic gaze biases, the researchers could confidently attribute observed topographic variations to cortical processing rather than eye movements.

This study exemplifies how eye tracking is not merely a supplementary tool but an integral component of a robust experimental design in VEP research, enabling researchers to draw more precise and reliable conclusions about visual processing in the brain.

For information regarding how eye tracking can help your research, check out our solutions and product pages or contact us. We are happy to help!