Assessing Attentional Bias in Secondary Cleft Lip Deformities: An Eye-Tracking Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Using a well-established measure of attention, we aimed to objectively identify differences in severity between types of simulated secondary cleft lip deformities. DESIGN: Volunteer participants viewed a series of images of a child digitally modified to simulate different secondary unilateral cleft lip deformities (long lip, short lip, white roll/vermilion disjunction, and vermilion excess), a lip scar with no secondary deformity, or a normal lip. Eye movements were recorded using a table-mounted eye-tracking device. Dwell times for 7 facial regions (eyes, nose, mouth, left ear, right ear, scar, and entire face) were compared. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six naive adults (25 male; mean age 25.5 years) were recruited from our local university community. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome of the study was cumulative dwell time between facial regions (eyes, nose, mouth, left ear, right ear, scar, and entire face). RESULTS: Participants spent significantly more time focused on the upper lip regions in patients with simulated secondary deformities relative to those who did not ( P < .01). Severe short lip deformities resulted in longer fixation times than severe long lips ( P < .05). Participants spent less time focused on the eye region in the presence of a secondary lip deformity ( P < .05). When total facial fixation time was assessed, short lip deformities resulted in the greatest duration dwell time ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents objective data to support the concept that observers show varying degrees of attentional bias to the lip region depending on the type and severity of the simulated secondary cleft lip deformity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".