To study eye patterns in a lab seems to me like a fruitless waste of time and effort. The study Guilherme quotes does not (on my quick reading of it on kevin hogan's website)make the basic distinction between content and process. In order to correlate eye movements to rep sytems assumes accuracy in assessing the sequence (strategy)that the individual was running internally in order to respond to the question asked. In other words people do what they do, not what a 'theory' says they are supposed to do. Under unnatural experimental conditions you are even more likely to get a wide variety of responses. As an example when asked what a warm bath feels like I may go through quite a sequence - e.g.repeat the question to myself (could be either Ad or Ar), then see myself in the bath (Vr or Vc or VK synaesthesia) and suddenly remember that I've run out of soap! (Vr or Vc or Ad) so remind myself to call in at the store on my way home (Ad Vc Vr), then forget what the questioner was asking (Ad Ki Ar)and so on and so on - part of the fun of being human is our ability to run all this very fast in our heads (and by the way even the above leaves out vast chunks of the entire process). Then add in all the variables such as the context, level of rapport with the interviewer, analogue voice and physiology cues from the interviewer, state, physiology, anchoring etc.,etc.,and you may get a sense of why I suggest lab experiments are pointless So here is a simple suggestion - if you really want to research eye accessing do so by watching (video taping) eye patterns in a 'natural' environment. Even better practice your own accuracy in tracking and interpreting eye patterns by feeding back the sequence to the individual and pay attention to (un)conscious agreement or not with the fedback sequence. Highly unscientific (more of an art form) but extremely effective and a fantastic convincer for the individual that eye accessing 'works'. This does presuppose you can track them and my guess is that if you need to experiment in a lab then you probably don't have the sensory acuity to do so or you wouldn't need 'an experiment' to convince you of their usefulness! And by the way I am not endorsing the original  'classic' model of eye patterns as correct just suggesting that it is a useful starting point !