Abstract
Background/Objectives Virtual Reality (VR) eye trackers offer portable, objective tools for neuro-ophthalmic testing. This study evaluated the feasibility, reproducibility and reliability of a VR eye tracker (BulbiCAM) compared to wearable eye-tracking glasses (PupilLabs Neon glasses), highlighting its potential clinical utility and feasibility.
Subjects/Methods A prospective study involving 39 healthy participants (mean age⍰±⍰SD = 30.0 ± 9.5 years) assessed inter-visit reproducibility of BulbiCAM tests across two visits. Pupillary light reflex tests were conducted with both BulbiCAM and PupilLabs Neon, enabling paired assessments. Reproducibility was analysed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), reliability via Bland-Altman analysis, and participant experience through a survey evaluating test comfort and usability.
Results Participants’ feedback (n=27) highlighted high acceptability for BulbiCAM: 89% found the test comfortable, 92.6% felt the testing duration was appropriate, and 81.5% reported no eye strain or fatigue. Inter-visit reproducibility of Bulbicam tests showed high reproducibility for pursuit and pupil tests (ICC= 0.88-0.76), while saccadic tasks showed lower reproducibility (best ICC at 0.62). Paired assessments between devices showed close agreement for key pupillometer metrics: baseline diameter (bias: -0.48 ± 0.47 mm), peak constriction diameter (bias: -0.56 ± 0.36 mm), constriction velocity (bias: 0.22 ± 0.58 mm/s), and duration of constriction (bias: -0.052 ± 0.15 s).
Conclusions This study highlights the clinical feasibility of BulbiCAM, with high patient acceptability and reproducibility for pursuit and pupil tests. Paired assessments confirmed its accuracy for key pupillometric parameters, validating its reliability for clinical and research use.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC), London, UK (grant number: MR/X502777/1) and the Ulverscroft Foundation.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study received ethical approval from the East Midlands Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (REC) (REC reference: 21/EM/0017, protocol version: 0772, and the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) approval (IRAS ID: 279309).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
