Quantitative comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preferences

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 441-448

  Giddon, Donald B ^a,b   Sconzo, Regina ^c   Kinchen, Jason A ^d   Evans, Carla A ^b  

^a University of Illinois ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MATHWORKS INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer imaging; Facial esthetics; Psychophysics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHIN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; DENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION; ESTHETICS; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; LIP; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEX DIFFERENCE; TOOTH OCCLUSION;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CHIN; DENTAL OCCLUSION; ESTHETICS; FACE; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION, DENTAL; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIP; MALE; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS I; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS III; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEX FACTORS; VERTICAL DIMENSION;

EID: 0030346151     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Haxton J, Giddon DB. Quantitation of tolerance for cranio-facial deviation. J Dent Res 1985;64:292.
2. Giddon DB, Sconzo R, Kinchen JA, Evans CA. Psychophysical comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preferences [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1994;73:368.
3. Giddon DB, Bernier DL, Kinchen KA, Evans CA. Comparison of two computer-animated imaging programs for quantifying facial profile preference. Percept Mot Skills. 1996;82:1251-64.
4. Alley TR, Hildebrandt JA. Determinants and consequences of facial aesthetics. In: Alley TR, eds. Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, 1988:101-40.
5. Iliffe AH. A study of preferences in feminine beauty. Brit J Psychol 1960;51:267-73.
6. Udry JR. Structural correlates of feminine beauty preferences in Britain and the United States: A comparison. Sociology and Social Research 1965;49:330.
7. Peck S, Peck L. Facial realities and oral esthetics. In: McMamara JA Jr, ed. Craniofacial Growth Series, v. 28. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, 1993:77-113.
8. Patzer GL. The Physical Attractiveness Phenomena. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.
9. Albino JE, Alley TR, Tedesco LA, Tobiasen JA, Kiyak HA, Lawrence SD. Esthetic issues in behavioral dentistry. Ann Behav Med 1990;12:148-55.
10. Alley TR, Cunningham MR. Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average. Psychol Sci 1991;2:123-5.
11. Cunningham MR. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;50:925-35.
12. Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the attractive North American Caucasian face, chapter XIII. In: Farkas LG, 2nd ed. Anthropometry of the head and face. New York: Raven Press, 1994:159-80.
13. Johnston V, Franklin M. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology 1993;14:183-99.
14. Jones D, Hill K. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature 1993;4:271-96.
15. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci 1990;1:115-21.
16. Lucker GW. Esthetics and a quantitative analysis of facial appearance. In: Lucker GW, Ribbens KA, McNamara JA Jr, eds. Psychological Aspects of Facial Form. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, 1981:49-80. (Craniofacial Growth Series; Monograph No. 11).
17. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature 1994;368:239-42.
18. Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu C-H. "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995;68:261-79.
19. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Journal of Human Nature 1993;4:237-69.
20. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 1994;108:233-42.
21. Peck S. Beauty is youth, youth beauty? [Letter to editor]. Science News 1994:115.
22. Goldstein R. Guest editorial: esthetic dentistry - a health service? J Dent Res 1993;72:642-3.
23. Kiyak HA. Psychological aspects of orthognathic surgery. Psychology and Health 1993;8:197-212.
24. Giddon DB. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995;1:82-93.
25. Kitay DR. Computer animated imaging to determine discrepancies between objective and subjective profile measures [Thesis]. Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, 1993.
26. Kitay DR, Kinchen JA, Evans CA, Giddon DB. Self perception of computer animated profiles in orthodontic/non-orthodontic patients [Abstract]. American Association of Orthodontists Annual Meeting Research Abstracts 1993;1:38.
27. Olzak LA, Thomas JP. Seeing spatial patterns. In: Boff KR, Kaufmann L, Thomas JP, eds. Handbook of perception and performance, v. 1. NY: Wiley, 1986:717-56.
28. Cabrera AF. Logistic regression analysis in higher education: An applied perspective. In: Smart JC, ed. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. v. 10. New York: Agathon Press, 1994:225-56.
29. Rosenthal R. Sampling judges and encoders. In: Judgment studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987:9-37.
30. Todd JT. On the optic sphere theory and the nature of visual information. In: Jansson G, Bergstrom SS, Epstein W, eds. Perceiving Events and Objects. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1994:471-8.
31. Scott WA. Attitude measurement. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology. 3rd ed. v. II. NY: Random House, 1985:204-73.
32. Tedesco LA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, Green LJ, Lewis EA, Slakter MJ. A dental-facial attractiveness scale part I: reliability and validity. Am J Orthod 1983:38-43.
33. Tedesco LA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, Slakter MJ, Waltz KJ. A Dental-Facial Attractiveness Scale Part II: Consistency of Perception. Am J Orthod 1983;8:44-6.
34. Phillips C, Tulloch C, Dann C. Rating of facial attractiveness. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:214-20.
35. Burcal RG, Laskin DM, Sperry TP. Recognition of profile change after simulated orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 1987;45:666-70.
36. Mather G. The movement aftereffect and a distribution-shift model for coding the direction of visual movement. Perception 1980;9:379-82.
37. Backstrom MJ, Ashmore RD. The multiplicity of physical attractiveness: categories and dimensions underlying college students' everyday language of beauty [Abstract]. Eastern Psychological Association, 1990 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.
38. Bergemann K, Ashmore RD. Physical unattractiveness as a psychological multiplicity: categories and dimensions underlying college students' everyday language of ugliness [Abstract]. Eastern Psychological Association, 1990 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.
39. Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Musselman L. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychol Sci 1994;5:214-20.
40. Farzaneh S, Kinchen JA, Evans CA, Giddon DB. Aesthetic judgment of variations in lip morphology [Abstract]. American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association Abstracts 1994:53.
41. Sinclair PM, Kilpelainen P, Phillips C, White RP Jr, Rogers L, Sarver DM. The accuracy of video imaging in orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 1995;107:177-85.