ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023
Assessing saliency models of observers' visual attention on acquired facial differences.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Saliency models that predict observers' visual attention to facial differences could enable psychosocial interventions to help patients and their families anticipate staring behaviors. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of existing saliency models to predict observers' visual attention to acquired facial differences arising from head and neck cancer and its treatment. Approach: Saliency maps predicted by graph-based visual saliency (GBVS), an artificial neural network (ANN), and a face-specific model were compared to observer fixation maps generated from eye-tracking of lay observers presented with clinical facial photographs of patients with a visible or functional impairment manifesting in the head and neck region. We used a linear mixed-effects model to investigate observer and stimulus factors associated with the saliency models' accuracy. Results: The GBVS model predicted many irrelevant regions (e.g., shirt collars) as being salient. The ANN model underestimated observers' attention to facial differences relative to the central region of the face. Compared with GBVS and ANN, the face-specific saliency model was more accurate on this task; however, the face-specific model underestimated the saliency of deviations from the typical structure of human faces. The linear mixed-effects model revealed that the location of the facial difference (midface versus periphery) was significantly associated with saliency model performance. Model performance was also significantly impacted by interobserver variability. Conclusions: Existing saliency models are not adequate for predicting observers' visual attention to facial differences. Extensions of face-specific saliency models are needed to accurately predict the saliency of acquired facial differences arising from head and neck cancer and its treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.