Keep up to date with the latest Eye Tracking news and trends

Affordable eye-tracker hits the market for developers

Posted on Aug 13, 2013 | 1 comment

Affordable eye tracker hits the market for developersEye tracking systems are notoriously expensive; however, Gazepoint, a new startup, is attempting to change all of this with their affordable eye-tracker system. Their GP3 system is now on sale for $350 and features an open standard API, encouraging developers to come up with their own applications and programs for the device.

The device tracks where a user is looking on a computer screen, which allows the user to control a computer with their eyes. On the Gazepoint website the GP3 device is demoed playing fruit ninja with the eyes. The video demonstrates that there are several settings that can be used to change the way the mouse moves on the screen.

Gazepoint designed their latest system to be straightforward and simple. In fact, the GP3 system can be installed and calibrated to the user within minutes. The company is trying to lower the cost to entry in the eye tracking technology industry and hopefully we will be seeing more applications for eye tracking when the technology is more widespread.

Eye tracking has recently been rumored to be featured in the latest technology like the iPhone and Google Glass, but until then it, this relatively inexpensive device will help developers become familiar with eye tracking systems before they become widely used.

Specs: The GP3 system fits directly below the screen of a computer and is powered by USB. The system has a 5 point callibration system and has .5-1 degree accuracy.

The discounted price of $350 is only available until August 15, 2013 and can be ordered on their website. For more information visit http://gazept.com/

We are excited to see what happens when more developers get their hands on devices such as the GP3. So how do you feel about eye tracking technology becoming more affordable and accessible? Do you think there is still a price/quality tradeoff? Let us know below!

 

 

Related articles:

  1. New Eye Tracker for Academic, Market, and Usability Research
  2. Wearable Eye Tracker Tries to be Most Affordable

  • Peter Naus

    As an amateur (self-taught), I’m really interested in learning how my own eyesight is deteriorating with age, and how my brain is working around problems like binocular diplopia, corneal degradation, and the steady move to digital, rather than paper, reading devices.

    As a kid, I used to read underneath the bedcovers, lit only by my glow-in-the-dark rosary beads! And I don’t believe that caused many negative issues later in life, as is commonly stated. I suspect that because of that early passion for reading in low-light situations, I’ve developed slightly different means of tracking information, especially text, than most other people. (I can still read in normal home/ambient lighting at over 800 wpm, but it takes an effort now, and is way below my peak at 1300 wpm (measured when I was about 9 years old).)

    As a software developer and hardware designer, I’m fascinated by both the mechanical aspects (optimal illumination, camera placement and types, data storage, and so on) and the software (object detection, data compression, statistical analysis) side of things. I’m lucky enough to have great medical understanding too, so I look not only at one aspect of any of this.

    I would prefer there to be a multi-tiered approach to making eye tracking available to keen amateurs like me, as well as marketing, and what I’d call high-end or professional tracking devices.

    These would be differentiated probably by tracking speed and resolution. At the moment, everyone seems to want infinite resolution with infinite bandwidth and data smoothing, just like everything else. But as more individuals become involved in this area, I suspect manufacturers might see the opportunity for much lower resolution and/or tracking speed, which is primarily a hardware-defined relationship between the two aspects. Of course, there should be a similar range of software solutions too – from high-end statistical analysis to much quicker and dirtier vector or point-to-point gaze hopping (which is where I think I’m at at the moment). I hope that makes sense!

    Having a lower-specced option would seem to be a good way for manufacturers and developers to introduce the basics, and most people interested would then be drawn, if they require it, to higher levels of angular resolution, gaze directionality, focal length, data throughput, and processing. That’s how most of the software and hardware world works – you buy some software that lets you do some things, then as your skill and needs increase, you unlock more and more options, paying as you go. Or if you like, entry-level, pro, and specialist versions of the software, which is how it works for most software products.

    I’m fascinated by this area of technology and knowledge, and I think there are great opportunities for clever manufacturers and developers to cater to a huge range of needs. Manufacturers could offset a loss in selling high-end glasses or screen-mounted hardware at the entry level or low end of the market, against their already high-margin high-end of the market. At least, that’s the way it seems to be to me.

    To make money, you have to spend money. Or, in this case, lose a little money upfront, for an increase in later sales, when economies of scale may have reduced manufacturing costs further. Win-Win.

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I apologise for the long reply and possibly scatter-brained arguments.