Assessing Gaze Patterns in Common Cosmetic Procedures With Eye-Tracking Technology

Searching for Signs of Plastic Surgery on the Face: Tracking the Eyes of Where Observers Look

Background: Objective measurement of where observers direct their attention to faces when searching for signs of facial plastic surgery (FPS) is currently lacking. Objective: To compare where laypersons direct their attention on facial photographs using eye-tracking software when they are asked to (1) search for signs of aesthetic facial surgery or (2) allowed to gaze without direction (free-gaze). Methods: Naïve observers either free-gazed or examined faces for signs of FPS (FPS-prompted) for 10 s per face while their gaze was recorded by an eye-tracking system. Faces had no known history or signs/stigmata of FPS and were selected from the FACES and CFD databases with a diverse demographic distribution. Gaze times in nine facial subregions were analyzed using mixed-effects linear regression. Results: In FPS-prompted observers (n = 50, mean age 32.7 ± 11.3 years, 23/50 (46%) female), the nose, mouth, cheeks, and forehead experienced the most substantial increases (p < 0.001) and a high percentage of overall gaze time (17.9%, 12.5%, 12.0%, 9.6%, respectively) compared to free-gazing observers [n = 57, 35.5 ± 13.9 years, 31/57 (54%) female]. Conclusions: Observers direct attention differently on a face when searching for signs of plastic surgery with increased attention on the nose, mouth, cheeks, and forehead.

A Narrative Review of Eye-Tracking Assessment of Esthetic Endpoints in Plastic, Reconstructive, and Craniofacial Surgery

ABSTRACT

Reporting of esthetic outcomes in plastic surgery relies classically on ill-defined endpoints and subjective measures very often from the patients' and/or providers' perspectives that are notoriously characterized by subjectivity and questionable solid scientific validation. With the recent trend of increasing demand for all types of esthetic medical and surgical interventions, there is an urgent need for reliable and objective outcome measures to quantitate esthetic outcomes and determine the efficacy of these interventions. The current review is intended to analyze available evidence regarding advantages as well as limitations of eye-tracking (ET) technology in objectively documenting esthetic outcomes of plastic, reconstructive, and craniofacial interventions. Although gaze pattern analysis is gaining more attention, ET data should be interpreted with caution; how a specific visual stimulus directly influences one's sense of esthetics is still not clear. Furthermore, despite its great potentials, it is still too early to confirm or deny ET usefulness. Nevertheless, patient-reported outcomes being most indicative of an esthetic intervention success, measurement of patients' satisfaction by ET technology could offer a major breakthrough in objective assessment of esthetic outcomes that need further in-depth investigation.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

Level III.

The Use of Eye-tracking Technology in Cleft Lip: A Literature Review

Eye-tracking has become an increasingly popular research tool within the field of cleft lip and/or palate (CL+/-P). Despite this, there are no standardized protocols for conducting research. Our objective was to conduct a literature review of the methodology and outcomes of previous publications using eye-tracking in CL+/-P.

Methods

The PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all articles published up to August 2022. All articles were screened by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria included using eye-tracking, image stimuli of CL+/-P, and outcome reporting using areas of interest (AOIs). Exclusion criteria included non-English studies, conference articles, and image stimuli of conditions other than CL+/-P.

Results

Forty articles were identified, and 16 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thirteen studies only displayed images of individuals following cleft lip surgery with three only displaying unrepaired cleft lips. Significant variation was found in study design, particularly in the AOIs used to report gaze outcomes. Ten studies asked participants to provide an outcome score alongside eye-tracking; however, only four compared outcome data to eye-tracking data. This review is primarily limited by the minimal number of publications in this area.

Conclusions

Eye-tracking can be a powerful tool in evaluating appearance outcomes following CL+/-P surgery. It is currently limited by the lack of standardized research methodology and varied study design. Before future work, a replicable protocol should be developed to maximize the potential of this technology.