Fix Mean Saccade Velocity Calculation Denominator#68
Merged
oscararenas12 merged 2 commits intomainfrom Nov 4, 2025
Merged
Conversation
…-1) velocity measurements between n points instead of n points
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Fixes mean saccade velocity calculation bug in
SaccadeVelocity.java.Problem
The denominator incorrectly used
saccadePoints.size() - discardedDataCount, which divides by the number of points instead of the number of velocity measurements.Solution
Changed line 226 to
saccadePoints.size() - 1 - discardedDataCountbecause n points produce n-1 velocitymeasurements between consecutive points.
Example
With 5 points and 1 discarded measurement:
Changes
getMeanVelocity()denominator calculationtest_DGMs.csvto correct velocity valuesNeeded
We must update User Manuel, section 4.2.3.1 "Saccade Velocity" (page 17) says:
This is incorrect and needs to be updated. Based on the bug fix we just made, it should say:
Or more concisely: