Perceptive Hierarchy of Facial Skin Lesions: An Eye-tracking Study


  • Marek Jankowski Chair of Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul. Sklodowskiej-Curie 9, PL-85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Agnieszka Goroncy Department of Mathematical Statistics and Data Mining, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland.



eye movement measurements, visual perception, social perception, acne, scars


Equal importance is given to every skin lesion in treatment guidelines and severity grading systems for facial lesions. Face recognition studies suggest differentially perceived areas of the human face. The aims of this study were to quantify the visual attention given to facial skin lesions and to explore their hierarchy. Eye movements were tracked in 118 participants who viewed 135 faces with facial skin lesions. The main effect of the image was significant (F[9, 1053]=15.631, p < 0.001, η2=0.118), which implied a difference in the total visual attention between images depicting skin lesions in different aesthetic units. Lesions in the frontal area received the highest area- specific attention, while lesions in the right parotid area had the smallest effect. Using objective computational clustering, 2 very distinct zones of visual attention were identified: the ocular, nasal, perioral, and frontal areas attracted high visual scrutiny and the remaining areas attracted little attention. However, the presence of skin lesions in the high-attention region resulted in a decrease in total visual attention to the face. The main effect of the aesthetic unit was significant (F[15, 1755]=202.178, p < 0.001, η2=0.633). More than 63% of attention-drawing potential of facial skin lesions depends on their anatomical location, which should be considered in disease severity grading and treatment planning.


Download data is not yet available.


Do JE, Cho SM, In SI, Lim KY, Lee S, Lee ES. Psychosocial aspects of acne vulgaris: a community-based study with Korean adolescents. Ann Dermatol 2009; 21: 125-129. DOI:

Tasoula E, Gregoriou S, Chalikias J, Lazarou D, Danopoulou I, Katsambas A, et al. The impact of acne vulgaris on quality of life and psychic health in young adolescents in Greece. Results of a population survey. An Bras Dermatol 2012; 87: 862-869. DOI:

Hald M, Arendrup MC, Svejgaard EL, Lindskov R, Foged EK, Saunte DM; Danish Society of Dermatology. Evidence-based Danish guidelines for the treatment of Malassezia-related skin diseases. Acta Derm Venereol 2015; 95: 12-19. DOI:

Nast A, Dréno B, Bettoli V, Bukvic Mokos Z, Degitz K, Dressler C, et al. European evidence-based (S3) guideline for the treatment of acne - update 2016 - short version. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2016; 30: 1261-1268. DOI:

Salleras M, Alegre M, Alonso-Usero V, Boixeda P, Domínguez-Silva J, Fernández-Herrera J, et al. Spanish consensus document on the treatment algorithm for rosacea. Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed) 2019; 110: 533-545. DOI: DOI:

Stathakis V, Kilkenny M, Marks R. Descriptive epidemiology of acne vulgaris in the community. Australas J Dermatol 1997; 38: 115-123. DOI:

Ramli R, Malik AS, Hani AF, Jamil A. Acne analysis, grading and computational assessment methods: an overview. Skin Res Technol 2012; 18: 1-14. DOI:

Bernardis E, Shou H, Barbieri JS, McMahon PJ, Perman MJ, Rola LA, et al. Development and initial validation of a multidimensional acne global grading system integrating primary lesions and secondary changes. JAMA Dermatol 2020; 156: 296-302. DOI:

Doshi A, Zaheer A, Stiller MJ. A comparison of current acne grading systems and proposal of a novel system. Int J Dermatol 1997; 36: 416-418. DOI:

Clark AK, Saric S, Sivamani RK. Acne scars: how do we grade them? Am J Clin Dermatol 2018; 19: 139-144. DOI:

Wilkin J, Dahl M, Detmar M, Drake L, Liang MH, Odom R, et al. Standard grading system for rosacea: report of the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee on the classification and staging of rosacea. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50: 907-912. DOI:

Kanan C, Bseiso DN, Ray NA, Hsiao JH, Cottrell GW. Humans have idiosyncratic and task-specific scanpaths for judging faces. Vision Res. 2015; 108: 67-76. DOI:

Rogers SL, Speelman CP, Guidetti O, Longmuir M. Using dual eye tracking to uncover personal gaze patterns during social interaction. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 4271. DOI:

Eisenbarth H, Alpers GW. Happy mouth and sad eyes: scanning emotional facial expressions. Emotion. 2011; 11: 860-865. DOI:

Calvo MG, Fernández-Martín A, Gutiérrez-García A, Lundqvist D. Selective eye fixations on diagnostic face regions of dynamic emotional expressions: KDEF-dyn database. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 17039. DOI:

Omodaka T, Minagawa A, Okuyama R. Ultraviolet-related skin cancers distribute differently on the face surface. Bri J Dermatol 2021; 185: 205-207. DOI:

Choi JH, Kim YJ, Kim H, Nam SH, Choi YW. Distribution of basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma by facial esthetic unit. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 387-391. DOI:

Cuve HC, Stojanov J, Roberts-Gaal X, Catmur C, Bird G. Validation of Gazepoint low-cost eye-tracking and psychophysiology bundle. Behav Res Methods 2022; 54: 1027-1049. DOI:

Gonzalez-ulloa M: Restoration of the face covering by means of selected skin in regional aesthetic units. Br J Plast Surg 1956; 9: 212. DOI:

Liao D, Ishii M, Darrach HM, Bater KL, Smith J, Joseph AW, et al. Objectively measuring observer attention in severe thyroid-associated orbitopathy: A 3D study. Laryngoscope 2019; 129: 1250-1254. DOI:

van Schijndel O, Litschel R, Maal TJ, Bergé SJ, Tasman AJ. Eye tracker based study: Perception of faces with a cleft lip and nose deformity. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 1620-1625. DOI:

Hsiao JH, Cottrell G. Two fixations suffice in face recognition. Psychol Sci 2008; 19: 998-1006. DOI:

Dakin SC, Watt RJ. Biological "bar codes" in human faces. J Vis 2009; 9: 2.1-2.10. DOI:

Slater A, Von der Schulenburg C, Brown E, Badenoch M, Butterworth G, Parsons S, et al. Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. Infant Behav Dev 1998; 21: 345-354. DOI:

Blascovich J, Mendes WB, Hunter SB, Lickel B, Kowai-Bell N. Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001; 80: 253-267. DOI:

Madera JM. Facial stigmas in dyadic selection interviews: affective and behavioral reactions toward a stigmatized applicant. J Hosp Tourism Res 2016; 40: 456-475. DOI:

Madera JM, Hebl MR. Discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants in interviews: an eye-tracking and face-to-face investigation. J Appl Psychol 2012; 97: 317-330. DOI:

Rennels JL, Cummings AJ. Sex differences in facial scanning: similarities and dissimilarities between infants and adults. Int J Behav Dev 2013; 37: 111-117. DOI:

Blais C, Jack RE, Scheepers C, Fiset D, Caldara R. Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS One 2008; 3: e3022. DOI:

Cañigueral R, Hamilton AFC. The role of eye gaze during natural social interactions in typical and autistic people. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 560. DOI:

Han NX, Chakravarthula PN, Eckstein MP. Peripheral facial features guiding eye movements and reducing fixational variability. J Vis 2021; 21: 7. DOI:

Arizpe J, Walsh V, Yovel G, Baker CI. The categories, frequencies, and stability of idiosyncratic eye-movement patterns to faces. Vision Res 2017; 141: 191-203. DOI:

Coutrot A, Binetti N, Harrison C, Mareschal I, Johnston A. Face exploration dynamics differentiate men and women. J Vis 2016; 16: 16. DOI:

Additional Files



How to Cite

Jankowski, M., & Goroncy, A. (2022). Perceptive Hierarchy of Facial Skin Lesions: An Eye-tracking Study. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 102, adv00799.