利用眼动追踪比较外行人对不同类型面瘫面孔的注意。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Nicholas R Randall, Forrest W Fearington, Gloria Rodriguez, Lazaro R Peraza, Brittany E Howard, Jacob K Dey
{"title":"利用眼动追踪比较外行人对不同类型面瘫面孔的注意。","authors":"Nicholas R Randall, Forrest W Fearington, Gloria Rodriguez, Lazaro R Peraza, Brittany E Howard, Jacob K Dey","doi":"10.1089/fpsam.2024.0324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> There is a spectrum of facial paralysis patient presentations from complete flaccid facial paralysis (CFFP) to facial aberrant reinnervation syndrome (FARS). <b>Objective:</b> To objectively compare how laypersons direct attention to faces with different facial paralysis subtypes using eye-tracking technology. <b>Methods:</b> Lay observers freely gazed at standardized videos of 24 individuals' faces as follows: 8 with CFFP, 8 with FARS, and 8 nonparalyzed Controls performing common facial expressions. Eye-tracking measured observers' gaze and extracted data as time in milliseconds looking at facial subsites. Mixed effects regression was used for comparative analyses. <b>Results:</b> A total of 85 observers completed the study. For faces at rest, measurable differences in gaze patterns were noted for CFFP faces (more attention spent on nonparalyzed hemiface), whereas FARS and Control faces showed similar symmetric gaze patterns. With dynamic movement (smiling and brow-elevation), gaze patterns for both CFFP and FARS faces became altered and asymmetrical compared with Control faces. <b>Conclusions:</b> Faces with CFFP and FARS are viewed differently by casual observers, which has implications for patient care and future research. While CFFP showed gaze alterations (compared with Control) in both rest and facial expression states, FARS caused gaze alterations only with facial movement.</p>","PeriodicalId":48487,"journal":{"name":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Layperson Attention to Faces with Different Types of Facial Paralysis Using Eye-Tracking.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas R Randall, Forrest W Fearington, Gloria Rodriguez, Lazaro R Peraza, Brittany E Howard, Jacob K Dey\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/fpsam.2024.0324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> There is a spectrum of facial paralysis patient presentations from complete flaccid facial paralysis (CFFP) to facial aberrant reinnervation syndrome (FARS). <b>Objective:</b> To objectively compare how laypersons direct attention to faces with different facial paralysis subtypes using eye-tracking technology. <b>Methods:</b> Lay observers freely gazed at standardized videos of 24 individuals' faces as follows: 8 with CFFP, 8 with FARS, and 8 nonparalyzed Controls performing common facial expressions. Eye-tracking measured observers' gaze and extracted data as time in milliseconds looking at facial subsites. Mixed effects regression was used for comparative analyses. <b>Results:</b> A total of 85 observers completed the study. For faces at rest, measurable differences in gaze patterns were noted for CFFP faces (more attention spent on nonparalyzed hemiface), whereas FARS and Control faces showed similar symmetric gaze patterns. With dynamic movement (smiling and brow-elevation), gaze patterns for both CFFP and FARS faces became altered and asymmetrical compared with Control faces. <b>Conclusions:</b> Faces with CFFP and FARS are viewed differently by casual observers, which has implications for patient care and future research. While CFFP showed gaze alterations (compared with Control) in both rest and facial expression states, FARS caused gaze alterations only with facial movement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2024.0324\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2024.0324","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:从完全弛缓性面瘫(CFFP)到面部神经异常再支配综合征(FARS),面瘫患者的表现是多样的。目的:客观比较不同面瘫亚型外行人使用眼动追踪技术对面孔的直接注意效果。方法:非专业观察者自由地注视24个个体的标准化视频,其中8个是CFFP组,8个是FARS组,8个是非瘫痪组,他们表现出常见的面部表情。眼球追踪测量观察者的目光,并以毫秒为单位提取观察面部子部位的数据。采用混合效应回归进行比较分析。结果:共有85名观察员完成了研究。对于处于静止状态的面部,CFFP面部(更多的注意力花在未瘫痪的半脸上)的凝视模式存在可测量的差异,而FARS和控制组的面部则表现出相似的对称凝视模式。随着动态运动(微笑和眉毛升高),CFFP和FARS面部的凝视模式与对照组相比发生了改变和不对称。结论:随机观察者对CFFP和FARS面孔的看法不同,这对患者护理和未来的研究具有重要意义。与对照组相比,CFFP在休息和面部表情状态下都显示出凝视的变化,而FARS仅在面部运动时引起凝视的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Layperson Attention to Faces with Different Types of Facial Paralysis Using Eye-Tracking.

Background: There is a spectrum of facial paralysis patient presentations from complete flaccid facial paralysis (CFFP) to facial aberrant reinnervation syndrome (FARS). Objective: To objectively compare how laypersons direct attention to faces with different facial paralysis subtypes using eye-tracking technology. Methods: Lay observers freely gazed at standardized videos of 24 individuals' faces as follows: 8 with CFFP, 8 with FARS, and 8 nonparalyzed Controls performing common facial expressions. Eye-tracking measured observers' gaze and extracted data as time in milliseconds looking at facial subsites. Mixed effects regression was used for comparative analyses. Results: A total of 85 observers completed the study. For faces at rest, measurable differences in gaze patterns were noted for CFFP faces (more attention spent on nonparalyzed hemiface), whereas FARS and Control faces showed similar symmetric gaze patterns. With dynamic movement (smiling and brow-elevation), gaze patterns for both CFFP and FARS faces became altered and asymmetrical compared with Control faces. Conclusions: Faces with CFFP and FARS are viewed differently by casual observers, which has implications for patient care and future research. While CFFP showed gaze alterations (compared with Control) in both rest and facial expression states, FARS caused gaze alterations only with facial movement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
30.00%
发文量
159
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信