The Relationship Between Face Mask Use and Face-Touching Frequency in Public Areas: Naturalistic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, a major public health goal has been reducing the spread of the virus, with particular emphasis on reducing transmission from person to person. Frequent face touching can transmit viral particles from one infected person and subsequently infect others in a public area. This raises an important concern about the use of face masks and their relationship with face-touching behaviors. One concern discussed during the pandemic is that wearing a mask, and different types of masks, could increase face touching because there is a need to remove the mask to smoke, drink, eat, etc. To date, there have been few studies that have assessed this relationship between mask wearing and the frequency of face touching relative to face-touching behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the frequency of face touching in people wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask in high-foot traffic urban outdoor areas. The purpose of this study was to assess if mask wearing was associated with increased face touching. METHODS: Public webcam videos from 4 different cities in New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Florida were used to collect data. Face touches were recorded as pedestrians passed under the webcam. Adult pedestrians wearing masks were compared to those not wearing masks. Quantitative measures of frequency, duration, site of touch, and oral activities were recorded. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the association between mask use and face touching. RESULTS: Of the 490 observed subjects, 241 (49.2%) were wearing a mask properly and 249 (50.8%) were not. In the unmasked group, 33.7% (84/249) were wearing it improperly, covering the mouth only. Face touching occurred in 11.4% (56/490) of the masked group and 17.6% (88/490) in the unmasked group. Of those who touched their face, 61.1% (88/144) of people were not wearing a mask. The most common site of face touching was the perioral region in both groups. Both the masked and unmasked group had a frequency of face touching for 0.03 touches/s. Oral activities such as eating or smoking increased face touching in the unmasked group. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, non-mask-wearing subjects touched their face more frequently than those who were wearing a mask. This finding is substantial because wearing a face mask had a negative association with face touching. When wearing a mask, individuals are less likely to be spreading and ingesting viral particles. Therefore, wearing a mask is more effective in preventing the spread of viral particles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".