Comparative Performance of Three Eye-Tracking Devices in Detection of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Acute Versus Chronic Subject Populations
John King,Chantele Friend,Dong Zhang,Walter Carr
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae205
2024-08-19
Abstract:Introduction: Presently, traumatic brain injury (TBI) triage in field settings relies on symptom-based screening tools such as the updated Military Acute Concussion Evaluation. Objective eye-tracking may provide an alternative means of neurotrauma screening due to sensitivity to neurotrauma brain-health changes. Previously, the US Army Medical Research and Development Command Non-Invasive NeuroAssessment Devices (NINAD) Integrated Product Team identified 3 commercially available eye-tracking devices (SyncThink EYE-SYNC, Oculogica EyeBOX, NeuroKinetics IPAS) as meeting criteria toward being operationally effective in the detection of TBI in service members. We compared these devices to assess their relative performance in the classification of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) subjects versus normal healthy controls. Materials and methods: Participants 18 to 45 years of age were assigned to Acute mTBI, Chronic mTBI, or Control group per study criteria. Each completed a TBI assessment protocol with all 3 devices counterbalanced across participants. Acute mTBI participants were tested within 72 hours following injury whereas time since last injury for the Chronic mTBI group ranged from months to years. Discriminant analysis was undertaken to determine device classification performance in separating TBI subjects from controls. Area Under the Curves (AUCs) were calculated and used to compare the accuracy of device performance. Device-related factors including data quality, the need to repeat tests, and technical issues experienced were aggregated for reporting. Results: A total of 63 participants were recruited as Acute mTBI subjects, 34 as Chronic mTBI subjects, and 119 participants without history of TBI as controls. To maximize outcomes, poorer quality data were excluded from analysis using specific criteria where possible. Final analysis utilized 49 (43 male/6 female, mean [x̅] age = 24.3 years, SD [s] = 5.1) Acute mTBI subjects, and 34 (33 male/1 female, x̅ age = 38.8 years, s = 3.9) Chronic mTBI subjects were age- and gender-matched as closely as possible with Control subjects. AUCs obtained with 80% of total dataset ranged from 0.690 to 0.950 for the Acute Group and from 0.753 to 0.811 for the Chronic mTBI group. Validation with the remaining 20% of dataset produced AUCs ranging from 0.600 to 0.750 for Acute mTBI group and 0.490 to 0.571 for the Chronic mTBI group. Conclusions: Potential eye-tracking detection of mTBI, per training model outcomes, ranged from acceptable to excellent for the Acute mTBI group; however, it was less consistent for the Chronic mTBI group. The self-imposed targeted performance (AUC of 0.850) appears achievable, but further device improvements and research are necessary. Discriminant analysis models differed for the Acute versus Chronic mTBI groups, suggesting performance differences in eye-tracking. Although eye-tracking demonstrated sensitivity in the Chronic group, a more rigorous and/or longitudinal study design is required to evaluate this observation. mTBI injuries were not controlled for this study, potentially reducing eye-tracking assessment sensitivity. Overall, these findings indicate that while eye-tracking remains a viable means of mTBI screening, device-specific variability in data quality, length of testing, and ease of use must be addressed to achieve NINAD objectives and DoD implementation.