Comparison Among Manual Facial Approximations Conducted by Two Methodological Approaches of Face Prediction

This study verified the difference between two methods of forensic facial approximation (FFA) regarding recognition and resemblance rates. Three‐dimensional models of skulls were obtained from computerized tomography (CT) scans of two subjects (targets). Two manual FFAs were performed for each target, by applying two different guidelines for the facial structures (what we called “American method” (AM) and “Combined method” (CM)). Unfamiliar assessors evaluated the sculptures by recognition and resemblance tests. The AM was that which allowed more correct responses of recognition and higher resemblance's scores for the male target (p < 0.001). Regarding guidelines for modeling characteristics of the face, the ones that are practical and easily performed for sculptures, such as the length of the anterior nasal spine multiplied by 3 for nose prediction, may offer better results in terms of resemblance.

[1]  S. Richmond,et al.  A blind accuracy assessment of computer-modeled forensic facial reconstruction using computed tomography data from live subjects , 2006, Forensic science, medicine, and pathology.

[2]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  Measuring the Accuracy of Facial Approximations: A Comparative Study of Resemblance Rating and Face Array Methods , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[3]  Paul Suetens,et al.  Computerized craniofacial reconstruction using CT-derived implicit surface representations. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[4]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  Predicting mouth width from inter-canine width--a 75% rule. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[5]  Bernice W. Polemis.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 1959 .

[6]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  Predicting nose projection and pronasale position in facial approximation: a test of published methods and proposal of new guidelines. , 2003, American journal of physical anthropology.

[7]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[8]  Christopher Rynn,et al.  Prediction of nasal morphology from the skull , 2010, Forensic science, medicine, and pathology.

[9]  Connie L. Parks,et al.  Assessment of presentation methods for ReFace computerized facial approximations. , 2014, Forensic science international.

[10]  Caroline Wilkinson,et al.  Facial reconstruction – anatomical art or artistic anatomy? , 2010, Journal of anatomy.

[11]  R. Ward,et al.  The affect of tissue depth variation on craniofacial reconstructions. , 2007, Forensic science international.

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

[13]  S Miyasaka,et al.  The computer-aided facial reconstruction system. , 1995, Forensic science international.

[14]  Carl N. Stephan,et al.  Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gerasimov’s authentic approach to plastic facial reconstruction , 2016 .

[15]  Laura Verzé,et al.  History of facial reconstruction. , 2009, Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis.

[16]  C. Stephan,et al.  Facial Approximation—From Facial Reconstruction Synonym to Face Prediction Paradigm , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[17]  Won-Joon Lee,et al.  An Accuracy Assessment of Forensic Computerized Facial Reconstruction Employing Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography from Live Subjects , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[18]  Pierre Guyomarc'h,et al.  The Validity of Ear Prediction Guidelines Used in Facial Approximation *,†,‡ , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[19]  J. D. da Silva,et al.  Forensic facial approximation assessment: can application of different average facial tissue depth data facilitate recognition and establish acceptable level of resemblance? , 2016, Forensic science international.

[20]  Won-Joon Lee,et al.  Correlation Between Average Tissue Depth Data and Quantitative Accuracy of Forensic Craniofacial Reconstructions Measured by Geometric Surface Comparison Method , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[21]  Christopher Rynn,et al.  Appraisal of traditional and recently proposed relationships between the hard and soft dimensions of the nose in profile. , 2006, American journal of physical anthropology.

[22]  C N Stephan,et al.  Assessing facial approximation accuracy: how do resemblance ratings of disparate faces compare to recognition tests? , 2006, Forensic science international.

[23]  D. Vandermeulen,et al.  Computerized craniofacial reconstruction: Conceptual framework and review. , 2010, Forensic science international.

[24]  C N Stephan,et al.  Recognition by forensic facial approximation: case specific examples and empirical tests. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[25]  P Vanezis,et al.  Application of 3-D computer graphics for facial reconstruction and comparison with sculpting techniques. , 1989, Forensic science international.

[26]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  The reproducibility of facial approximation accuracy results generated from photo-spread tests. , 2010, Forensic science international.

[27]  Pedro Yoshito Noritomi,et al.  Tests of one Brazilian facial reconstruction method using three soft tissue depth sets and familiar assessors. , 2012, Forensic science international.

[28]  S. E. Whitnall.  The Anatomy of the Human Orbit: And Accessory Organs of Vision , 2015 .

[29]  E. Brunner,et al.  Nonparametric Analysis of Ordered Categorical Data in Designs with Longitudinal Observations and Small Sample Sizes , 2000 .

[30]  Rodolfo Francisco Haltenhoff Melani,et al.  Forensic facial reconstruction: Nasal projection in Brazilian adults. , 2016, Forensic science international.

[31]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  On Gerasimov’s Plastic Facial Reconstruction Technique: New Insights to Facilitate Repeatability * , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[32]  C N Stephan,et al.  Anthropological facial 'reconstruction--recognizing the fallacies, 'unembracing' the errors, and realizing method limits. , 2003, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

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

[34]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  Beyond the Sphere of the English Facial Approximation Literature: Ramifications of German Papers on Western Method Concepts * , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[35]  C N Stephan,et al.  Position of superciliare in relation to the lateral iris: testing a suggested facial approximation guideline. , 2002, Forensic science international.

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

[37]  Caroline Wilkinson,et al.  Skull re-assembly and the implications for forensic facial reconstruction , 2001 .

[38]  S. Hayes,et al.  Forensic facial approximation: an overview of current methods used at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine/Victoria Police Criminal Identification Squad. , 2005, The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology.

[39]  Pascal Staccini,et al.  Assessment of the accuracy of three-dimensional manual craniofacial reconstruction: a series of 25 controlled cases , 2007, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[40]  Stephanie Davy-Jow,et al.  Who is this person? A comparison study of current three-dimensional facial approximation methods. , 2013, Forensic science international.