Interaction among attractiveness, sex of face, and sexual orientation, F p .Post p hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that heterosexual men lookedPF-04634817 GPCR/G Protein longer at significantly less appealing faces of males than homosexual guys (p ), that heterosexual males looked longer at desirable female faces than significantly less eye-catching female faces (p ), that homosexual males looked longer at desirable female faces than less attractive female faces (p ), and that homosexual guys looked longer at eye-catching male faces than less desirable male faces (p ).Furthermore, heterosexual males looked longer at less appealing male faces than significantly less appealing female faces (p ), however they looked longer at desirable female faces than eye-catching male faces (p ).For the female participants, the identical ANOVA revealed significant key effects of attractiveness, F p .p and sex of face, F p PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21531787 .(see p Table).Eye-catching faces were looked at longer than significantly less attractive faces and male faces had been looked at longer than female faces.Imply Variety of FixationsTables and present the suggests (“fixation count”) sampled over participants separately for sex of participant (Table male, Table female participants).Relating to the mean number of fixations, the ANOVA for the male participants revealed a significant key impact of attractiveness, F p .(see Table).Attractive faces had been p looked at more generally than significantly less desirable faces.The interaction amongst attractiveness, sex of face, and sexual orientation was also considerable, F p .Post p hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that heterosexual guys looked a lot more typically at desirable female faces than less desirable female faces (p ), that homosexual males looked extra typically atTABLE Imply quantity of fixations (Fixation Count) and mean total fixation duration (Fixation Duration) on desirable and less attractive male and female faces and imply attractiveness ratings (Attractiveness rating) for desirable and significantly less eye-catching male and female faces for heterosexual and homosexual males.Guys Heterosexual M (SD) Fixation count Attractive male faces Significantly less desirable male faces Appealing female faces Much less attractive female faces Fixation duration Attractive male faces Much less eye-catching male faces Appealing female faces Significantly less appealing female faces Attractiveness rating Desirable male faces Significantly less eye-catching male faces Desirable female faces Much less eye-catching female faces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Homosexual M (SD)TABLE Imply number of fixations (Fixation Count) and mean total fixation duration (Fixation Duration) on attractive and less appealing male and female faces and mean attractiveness ratings (Attractiveness rating) for eye-catching and significantly less attractive male and female faces for heterosexual and homosexual ladies.Ladies Heterosexual M (SD) Fixation count Eye-catching male faces Much less attractive male faces Appealing female faces Less attractive female faces Fixation duration Desirable male faces Significantly less appealing male faces Attractive female faces Significantly less eye-catching female faces Attractiveness rating Eye-catching male faces Less eye-catching male faces Desirable female faces Significantly less appealing female faces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Homosexual M (SD)Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.orgMarch Volume ArticleMitrovic et al.Sexual Orientation Influences Visual ExplorationTABLE Evaluation of Variance for imply total fixation duration for male participants.Supply Involving subjects Sexual orientation (SexOr) Error Within subjec.