Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 20.
Published in final edited form as: J Neurosci Methods. 2008 Sep 17;176(2):157–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.09.010

Table II.

The algorithm is able to select ROIs that accurately track the motion of the camera. Results from the analysis of nine videos from both the parabolic flight and intentional blinking video collections are shown. errorRMS reported are the mean of the top 10 worthy ROIs determined for each trial. By the second generation, the average errorRMS is 0.75º. The average improvement between the first and second generation is 0.09º or 11% (p<0.07; paired one-tail t-test).

Video collection Subject Trial Eye errorRMS for top ten worthy ROIs average in bold (range in brackets) Improvement
Generation 1 Generation 2
Parabolic flight B1P-L Left 0.58º (0.32–1.15) 0.51º (0.50–0.52) 0.07º
Parabolic flight B1P-R Right 0.66º (0.24–1.08) 0.32º (0.26–0.45) 0.34º
Parabolic flight D1P-L Left 1.21º (0.30–1.57) 1.02º (0.79–1.41) 0.19º
Parabolic flight D1P-R Right 0.68º (0.32–0.87) 0.41º (0.28–0.56) 0.27º
Parabolic flight C1P-L Left 0.76º (0.51–1.13) 0.88º (0.60–1.21) −0.12º
Parabolic flight C1P-R Right 0.81º (0.59–1.04) 0.77º (0.58–1.76) 0.04º
Intentional blinking E1G-R Right 0.75º (0.52–0.89) 0.84º (0.55–1.02) −0.09º
Intentional blinking B2G-R Right 1.05º (0.54–1.99) 1.00º (0.92–1.05) 0.05º
Intentional blinking B3G-R Right 1.07º (1.00–1.11) 1.04º (1.01–1.07) 0.03º

Average across trials 0.84º 0.75º 0.09º