Table 2. .
Benefits and drawbacks of various methods used for researchers and caregivers
| PCIbex (Lab 1) | Gorilla (Lab 2) | Zoom/QuickTime (Lab 3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Researchers | Pros | Experiments can be asynchronous | Has a GUI and pre-set study templates for common paradigms | Provides back-up recordings in case videos are not uploaded |
| Support and documentation are available | Support and documentation are available | Does not require an internet connection to record | ||
| Free and open-source | Integrates with json library, HTML, and javascript | |||
| Integrates with HTML and javascript | ||||
| Cons | No GUI available, requires time to learn how to code experiments | Fee required for data collection | Requires a separate platform to present stimuli | |
| Caregivers | Pros | Study is easy to launch | Caregivers only need to be present for a short time (up to 10 minutes) at the beginning of the experiment to help set up | Caregivers are familiar with Zoom, making it easy to access and use |
| Experiments can be asynchronous | Video recordings are automatically uploaded through Gorilla at the end of the experiment | |||
| Cons | Loading times can be long if videos are large | Caregivers need to receive instructions synchronously from an experiment administrator and help with initial setup for web-cam recording. | Always requires caregivers to send videos manually | |
| Can require caregivers to download and send videos manually if they fail to upload | ||||
| Gaze coders | Pros | Auto-segments videos into trials | Auto-segments videos into trials | None |
| Cons | Video quality can drop with internet connection | Video quality can drop with internet connection | Video quality can drop with internet connection; Videos must be manually segmented into trials |