Facial appearance influences social perception, with laypersons focusing on the central facial triangle; nasal differences may alter gaze patterns, but few studies have quantified this using eye-tracking.
Objective:
To evaluate how layperson gaze patterns shift in response to different nasal variations as measured by eye-tracking.
Methods:
In this prospective cohort study, facial images with 30 nasal differences were created using Photoshop to represent a range of phenotypes, such as dorsal hump, crooked nose, and pinched tip, alongside controls. Gaze data were captured via eye-tracking, and linear mixed-effects modeling assessed differences in time spent viewing defined areas of interest, adjusting for participant and image variables.
Results:
A total of 119 participants (53.8% female) were enrolled. The median age was 40 years, and 82% identified as Caucasian. Among the 30 nasal alterations, only the saddle nose resulted in significantly increased gaze time compared to controls (mean increase: 0.89 s; p < 0.001). Participant age, sex, and gender of the face in the image did not significantly influence gaze behavior.
Conclusion:
In this study, only the saddle nose attracted greater visual attention from lay observers compared with other nasal variants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TodorovA, OlivolaCY, DotschR, et al.Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance.Annu Rev Psychol. 2015; 66:519–545; doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831
2.
WolffhechelK, FagertunJ, JacobsenUP, et al.Interpretation of appearance: The effect of facial features on first impressions and personality. PLoS One., 2014; 9(9):e107721; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107721
3.
CaiLZ, KwongJW, AzadAD, et al.Where do we look? assessing gaze patterns in cosmetic face-lift surgery with eye tracking technology. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 144(1):63–70; doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005700
4.
DeyJK, IshiiLE, ByrnePJ, et al.Seeing is believing: Objectively evaluating the impact of facial reanimation surgery on social perception. Laryngoscope. 2014; 124(11):2489–2497; doi: 10.1002/lary.24801
5.
IshiiL, DeyJ, BoaheneKD, et al.The social distraction of facial paralysis: Objective measurement of social attention using eye-tracking. Laryngoscope. 2016; 126(2):334–339; doi: 10.1002/lary.25324
6.
DeyJK, IshiiLE, BoaheneKDO, et al.Measuring outcomes of mohs defect reconstruction using eye-tracking technology. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019; 21(6):518–525; doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2019.1072
7.
FearingtonFW, PumfordAD, AwadallahAS, et al.Searching for Signs of Plastic Surgery on the Face: Tracking the eyes of where observers look. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2024; 26(5):532–537; doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2023.0260
8.
AsaadM, DeyJK, Al-MouakehA, et al.Eye-Tracking technology in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A systematic review. Aesthet Surg J. 2020; 40(9):1022–1034; doi: 10.1093/asj/sjz328
9.
PetersonDJ, AzadAD, GkorilaA, et al.Assessing gaze patterns in common cosmetic procedures with eye-tracking technology. Ann Plast Surg. 2020; 84(5S (Suppl 4)):S268–S272; doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002387
10.
GuimarãesLK, SchirloGFS, GasparelloGG, et al.Visual facial perception of postsurgical cleft lip scarring assessed by laypeople via eye-tracking. J Orthod Sci. 2021; 10:20; doi: 10.4103/jos.JOS_76_20
11.
van SchijndelO, LitschelR, MaalTJJ, et al.Eye trackerbased study: Perception of faces with a cleft lip and nose deformity. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery., 2015; 43(8):1620–1625; doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.07.003
12.
RobyBB, EbertB, ZavalaH, et al.Children’s Visual Perception of Facial Scarring and Cleft Lip Deformity Using Eye Tracking Data. Laryngoscope. 2024; 134(6):2726–2733; doi: 10.1002/lary.31267
13.
ValentineL, WeidmanAA, StearnsSA, et al.Rhinoplasty preferences: Can the public detect prior surgery on social media?. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024; 48(13):2423–2431; doi: 10.1007/s00266-023-03791-4
14.
DeyJK, IshiiM, BoaheneKDO, et al.Impact of facial defect reconstruction on attractiveness and negative facial perception. Laryngoscope. 2015; 125(6):1316–1321; doi: 10.1002/lary.25130
15.
TanakaH, JiangP. P1, N170, and N250 event-related potential components reflect temporal perception processing in face and body personal identification. J Cogn Neurosci. 2024; 36(7):1265–1281; doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_02167
16.
CaharelS, ColletK, RossionB. The early visual encoding of a face (N170) is viewpoint-dependent: A parametric ERP-adaptation study. Biol Psychol. 2015; 106:18–27; doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.01.010
17.
LuT-C, MohammedSM, LiaoH-T, et al.Aesthetic outcome of primary rhinoplasty of saddle nose deformity in naso-orbital ethmoidal fractures in asian patients. J Craniofac Surg., 2023; 34(1):272–278; doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008871
18.
GodoyA, IshiiM, ByrnePJ, et al.The straight truth: Measuring observer attention to the crooked nose. Laryngoscope. 2011; 121(5):937–941; doi: 10.1002/lary.21733
19.
RoxburyC, IshiiM, GodoyA, et al.Impact of crooked nose rhinoplasty on observer perceptions of attractiveness. Laryngoscope. 2012; 122(4):773–778; doi: 10.1002/lary.23191
20.
KwakK-H, KimY-I, NamH-J, et al.Differences among deviations, genders, and observers in the perception of eye and nose asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73(8):1606–1614; doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.02.009
21.
MoolenburghSE, MureauMAM, HoferSOP, et al.Facial attractiveness and abnormality of nasal reconstruction patients and controls assessed by laypersons. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg., 2008; 61(6):676–680; doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2007.12.017
22.
LiuK, ZhangC, ZhangY, et al.Perception of the nose and lower face before and after orthognathic surgery in subjects with dento-maxillofacial deformities: An eye-tracking study. Aesthetic Plast Surg., 2022; 46(4):1731–1737; doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-02854-2
23.
HeimingM, SavvasE, RudackC, et al.Discrepancy of the subjective perception of the nasal appearance between independent individuals and patients undergoing functional rhinoplasty (fRPL). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol., 2023; 280(1):191–197; doi: 10.1007/s00405-022-07504-6
24.
KimCH, KandathilCK, SaltychevM, et al.Difference in perception of nasal aesthetic appearance between surgeons and rhinoplasty patients: A single-center perspective. Aesthet Surg J., 2023; 43(4):516–522; doi: 10.1093/asj/sjac317
25.
de Lima RamosS, HochmanB, GomesHC, et al.Effect of nasal deviation on quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg., 2011; 128(1):132–136; doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182173d51
