The Placement of the Human Eyeball and Canthi in Craniofacial Identification

Abstract:  An accurate understanding of the spatial relationships between the deep and superficial structures of the head is essential for anthropological methods concerned with the comparison of faces to skulls (superimposition) or the prediction of faces from them (facial approximation). However, differences of opinion exist concerning: (i) the position of the eyeball in planes other than the anteroposterior plane and (ii) the canthi positions relative to the bony orbital margins. This study attempts to clarify the above relationships by dissection of a small sample of adult human cadavers (N = 4, mean age = 83 years, s = 12 years). The most notable finding was that the eyeballs were not centrally positioned within the orbits as the more recent craniofacial identification literature expounds. Rather, the eyeballs were consistently positioned closer to the orbital roof and lateral orbital wall (by 1–2 mm on average); a finding consistent with the earlier anatomical literature. While these estimation errors are small ipsilaterally, several factors make them meaningful: (i) the orbital region is heavily used for facial recognition; (ii) the width error is doubled because the eyes are bilateral structures; (iii) the eyes are sometimes used to predict/assess other soft tissue facial structures; and (iv) the net error in facial approximation rapidly accumulates with the subsequent prediction of each independent facial feature. While the small sample size of this study limits conclusive generalizations, the new data presented here nonetheless have immediate application to craniofacial identification practice because the results are evidence based. In contrast, metric data have never been published to support the use of the central positioning guideline. Clearly, this study warrants further quantification of the eyeball position in larger samples and preferably of younger individuals.

[1]  G. Maccurdy A Laboratory Manual of Anthropometry , 1921 .

[2]  Harris Hawthorne Wilder,et al.  THE PHSYSIOGNOMY OF THE INDIANS OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND , 1912 .

[3]  N. Haig Exploring Recognition with Interchanged Facial Features , 1986, Perception.

[4]  Mary H. Manhein,et al.  Making Faces: Using Forensic and Archaeological Evidence , 1998 .

[5]  W. M. Krogman The human skeleton in forensic medicine. I. , 1963, Postgraduate medicine.

[6]  Caroline M Wilkinson,et al.  Measurement of eyeball protrusion and its application in facial reconstruction. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[7]  D J Mishelevich,et al.  Soft-hard tissue correlations and computer drawings for the frontal view. , 1975, The Angle orthodontist.

[8]  C N Stephan,et al.  Building faces from dry skulls: are they recognized above chance rates? , 2001, Journal of forensic sciences.

[9]  P Tessier,et al.  The anatomy of the external palpebral ligament in man. , 1976, Journal of maxillofacial surgery.

[10]  S. Mccormick,et al.  The anatomy of the lateral canthal tendon. , 1987, Archives of ophthalmology.

[11]  Mark Froneman,et al.  Detection of petrol (gasoline) in fire debris by Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (GC/MS/MS) , 2002 .

[12]  M. Kashkouli,et al.  Hertel exophthalmometry: Reliability and interobserver variation , 2003, Orbit.

[13]  T. D. Stewart,et al.  The points of attachment of the palpebral ligaments: their use in facial reconstructions on the skull. , 1983, Journal of forensic sciences.

[14]  G. Gladstone,et al.  Determination of the normal range of exophthalmometric values for black and white adults. , 1984, American journal of ophthalmology.

[15]  A. Cruz,et al.  Comparison of Palpebral Fissure Obliquity in Three Different Racial Groups , 2001, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[16]  S E Whitnall,et al.  On a Tubercle on the Malar Bone, and on the Lateral Attachments of the Tarsal Plates. , 1911, Journal of anatomy and physiology.

[17]  RonaldD. Brown,et al.  Exophthalmometry of Blacks , 1975 .

[18]  P. Mulder,et al.  Topographic anatomy of the eyelids, and the effects of sex and age , 1999, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[19]  M. Yoshino,et al.  FACIAL IDENTIFICATION |Skull-photo Superimposition , 2000 .

[20]  H. Fledelius,et al.  Changes in eye position during growth and adult life , 1986, Acta ophthalmologica.

[21]  Betty Pat. Gatliff,et al.  Three-Dimensional Facial Reconstruction on the Skull , 2000 .

[22]  A. V. Cruz,et al.  The Geometrical Basis of the Eyelid Contour , 2000, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[23]  A. L. Yarbus,et al.  Eye Movements and Vision , 1967, Springer US.

[24]  M A Pogrel,et al.  Anatomy of the lateral canthal tendon. , 2000, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[25]  R. Barretto,et al.  Orbital Measurement in Black and White Populations , 1999, The Laryngoscope.

[26]  D. Brooks,et al.  The Anatomy of the Human Eye , 1834, The Medical Quarterly Review.

[27]  G E Anastassov,et al.  Evaluation of the anatomical position of the lateral canthal ligament: clinical implications and guidelines. , 1996, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[28]  K. Taylor Forensic Art and Illustration , 2000 .

[29]  E. Wolff The Anatomy of the Eye and Orbit , 1949, Nature.

[30]  Eugene Wolff,et al.  Wolff's anatomy of the eye and orbit , 1997 .

[31]  R. Goldberg,et al.  Relationship of the eye to the bony orbit, with clinical correlations. , 1999, Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology.

[32]  T. J. Robinson,et al.  The anatomy of the medial canthal ligament. , 1970, British journal of plastic surgery.

[33]  Skull-Photo Superimposition , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[34]  B. P. Gatliff,et al.  From skull to visage. , 1979, The Journal of biocommunication.

[35]  L F Dell'Osso,et al.  Eyes as the Center of Focus in the Visual Examination of Human Faces , 1978, Perceptual and motor skills.

[36]  B. P. Gatliff,et al.  Facial sculpture on the skull for identification , 1984, The American journal of forensic medicine and pathology.