Facial plastic surgery & aesthetic medicine · 2025
How Important is the Tragus in Ear Reconstruction? An Eye-Tracking Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Losorelli Steven, Le Bryan, Bahl Meenal, Chang Kay W, Most Sam P, Truong Mai Thy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Creating a tragus in microtia reconstruction is technically difficult, and its importance as a visual landmark is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the attention given to ears in photographs with and without a tragus, as measured by eye tracking of gaze patterns.
METHODS: Participant eye movements were tracked (Tobii Pro) while viewing photographs of a profile face and close-up view of the ear. The tragus was absent in half of the images. Gaze patterns were visualized as heat maps, and t-tests compared areas of interest on the face and ear.
RESULTS: Fifty adults (27 female, ages 21-83) without medical training participated. While viewing a profile face for 10 s, participants looked at a normal ear for 2.19 s (1.5-2.9) (mean, 95% CI) and an ear without a tragus for 2.25 s (1.6-2.9) (p = 0.81). On close-up view, the tragus received the least attention (0.19 s, 0-0.19), while gaze at the canal increased from 0.82 s (0.39-1.3) to 1.39 s (0.96-1.8) when the tragus was absent (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: When the tragus was absent, gaze patterns of the profile face were not impacted; however, the ear canal was more exposed and received more attention on close-up view of the ear. This may influence aesthetic goals in auricular reconstruction.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the attention given to ears in photographs with and without a tragus, as measured by eye tracking of gaze patterns.
METHODS: Participant eye movements were tracked (Tobii Pro) while viewing photographs of a profile face and close-up view of the ear. The tragus was absent in half of the images. Gaze patterns were visualized as heat maps, and t-tests compared areas of interest on the face and ear.
RESULTS: Fifty adults (27 female, ages 21-83) without medical training participated. While viewing a profile face for 10 s, participants looked at a normal ear for 2.19 s (1.5-2.9) (mean, 95% CI) and an ear without a tragus for 2.25 s (1.6-2.9) (p = 0.81). On close-up view, the tragus received the least attention (0.19 s, 0-0.19), while gaze at the canal increased from 0.82 s (0.39-1.3) to 1.39 s (0.96-1.8) when the tragus was absent (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: When the tragus was absent, gaze patterns of the profile face were not impacted; however, the ear canal was more exposed and received more attention on close-up view of the ear. This may influence aesthetic goals in auricular reconstruction.