Eye-Tracking-while-Reading: A Living Survey of Datasets with Open Library Support

Deborah N. Jakobi, David R. Reich, Paul Prasse, Jana M. Hofmann, Lena S. Bolliger, Lena A. Jäger · Feb 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. If the signals below are thin, treat it as background context and compare it against the stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Paper metadata checked

Feb 23, 2026, 8:40 AM

Stale

Protocol signals checked

Feb 23, 2026, 8:40 AM

Stale

Signal strength

Low

Model confidence 0.15

Abstract

Eye-tracking-while-reading corpora are a valuable resource for many different disciplines and use cases. Use cases range from studying the cognitive processes underlying reading to machine-learning-based applications, such as gaze-based assessments of reading comprehension. The past decades have seen an increase in the number and size of eye-tracking-while-reading datasets as well as increasing diversity with regard to the stimulus languages covered, the linguistic background of the participants, or accompanying psychometric or demographic data. The spread of data across different disciplines and the lack of data sharing standards across the communities lead to many existing datasets that cannot be easily reused due to a lack of interoperability. In this work, we aim at creating more transparency and clarity with regards to existing datasets and their features across different disciplines by i) presenting an extensive overview of existing datasets, ii) simplifying the sharing of newly created datasets by publishing a living overview online, https://dili-lab.github.io/datasets.html, presenting over 45 features for each dataset, and iii) integrating all publicly available datasets into the Python package pymovements which offers an eye-tracking datasets library. By doing so, we aim to strengthen the FAIR principles in eye-tracking-while-reading research and promote good scientific practices, such as reproducing and replicating studies.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Reliably Extract

Each protocol field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.