Measuring the accuracy of facial approximations: A comparative study of resemblance rating and face array methods

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 58-64

  Stephan, Carl N ^a   Cicolini, Jody ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Facial reconstruction; Facial reproduction; Forensic science; Performance; Recognition; Success

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FACE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SKULL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COPYING PROCESSES; FACE; FACIAL BONES; FEMALE; FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY; FORENSIC DENTISTRY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SCULPTURE;

EID: 39049097161     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00622.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Welcker H. Schiller's Schadel und Todtenmaske, nebst Mittheilungen über Schadel und Todtenmaske Kant's. Braunschweig : Viehweg F and Son, 1883.
2. Welcker H. Zur Kritik des Schillerschadels. Arch Anthropol 1888 17 : 19 60.
3. His W. Anatomische Forschungen über Johann Sebastian Bach's Gebeine und Antlitz nebst Bemerkungen über dessen Bilder. Abh MathPhysikal KI Kgl Sachs Ges Wiss 1895 22 : 379 420.
4. Von Eggeling H. Die Leistungsfahigkeit physiognomischer Rekonbstruktionsversuche auf Grundlage des Schadels'. Archiv für Anthropologie 1913 12 : 44 7.
5. Wilder HH, Wenworth B. Personal identification: methods for the identification of individuals, living or dead. Boston : Gorham Press, 1918.
6. Krogman WM, Işcan MY. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Illinois : Charles C Thomas, 1986.
7. Reichs KJ, Craig E. Facial approximation: procedures and pitfalls. In : Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. Springfield : Charles C. Thomas, 1998 491 513.
8. Clement JG, Ranson DL. Craniofacial identification in forensic medicine. London : Arnold, 1998.
9. Haglund WD. Forensic "art" in human identification. In : Clement JG, Ranson DL, editors. Craniofacial identification in forensic medicine. London : Arnold, 1998 235 43.
10. Haglund WD, Reay DT. Use of facial approximation techniques in identification of green river serial murder victims. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1991 12 : 132 42.
11. Stephan CN. Do resemblance ratings measure the accuracy of facial approximations J Forensic Sci 2002a 47 : 239 43.
12. Taylor R, Craig P. The wisdom of bones: facial approximation on the skull. In : Clement JG, Marks MK, editors. Computer-graphic facial reconstruction. Boston : Elsevier Academic Press, 2005 33 55.
13. Stephan CN, Henneberg M. Recognition by facial approximation: case specific examples and empirical tests. Forensic Sci Int 2006 156 : 182 91.
14. Montagu MFA. Aging of the skull. Am J Phys Anthropol 1938 23 : 355 75.
15. Singer R. Estimation of age from cranial suture closure. J Forensic Med 1953 1 : 52 9.
16. Perizonius WRK. Closing and non-closing sutures in 256 crania of known age and sex from Amsterdam (AD 1883-1909). J Hum Evol 1984 13 : 201 16.
17. Todd TW, Lyon JDW. Cranial suture closure. Part II Ectocranial suture closure in adult males of white stock. Am J Phys Anthropol 1925 8 : 23 43.
18. Hershkovitz I, Latimer B, Dutour O, Jellema LM, Wish-Baratz S, Rothschild C, et al. Why do we fail in aging the skull from the sagittal suture? Am J Phys Anthropol 1997 103 : 393 9.
19. Galera V, Ubelaker DH, Hayek L-AC. Comparison of macroscopic cranial methods of age estimation applied to skeletons from the Terry collection. J Forensic Sci 1998 43 : 933 9.
20. Prag J, Neave R. Making faces: using forensic and archaeological evidence. London : British Museum Press, 1997.
21. Helmer R. Schadelidentifizierung durch elekronicshe bildmischung: Zugleich ein beitrag zur konstitutionsbiometrie und dickenmessung der gesichtsweichteile. Heidelberg : Krminalistik-Verlag, 1984.
22. Wilkinson C. Forensic facial reconstruction. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2004.
23. Stephan CN. Facial approximation: falsification of globe projection guideline by exophthalmometry literature. J Forensic Sci 2002b 47 : 1 6.
24. Wilkinson CM, Mautner SA. Measurement of eyeball protrusion and its application in facial reconstruction [technical note]. J Forensic Sci 2003 48 : 12 6.
25. Stephan CN, Henneberg M. Predicting mouth width from inter-canine width - a 75% rule. J Forensic Sci 2003 48 : 725 7.
26. Stephan CN. Facial approximation: an evaluation of mouth width determination. Am J Phys Anthropol 2003 121 : 48 57.
27. George RM. The lateral craniographic method of facial reconstruction. J Forensic Sci 1987 32 : 1305 30.
28. Hoffman BE, McConathy DA, Coward M, Saddler L. Relationship between the piriform aperture and interalar nasal widths in adult males. J Forensic Sci 1991 36 : 1152 61.
29. Gerasimov M. Vosstanovlenie lica po cerepu. Moskva : Izdat. Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1955.
30. Gerasimov M. The face finder. London : Hutchinson & Co., 1971.
31. Fedosyutkin BA, Nainys JV. The relationship of skull morphology to facial features. In : Iscan MY, Helmer RP, editors. Forensic analysis of the skull. New York : Wiley-Liss, 1993 199 213.
32. Stephan CN. Position of superciliare in relation to the lateral iris: testing a suggested facial approximation guideline. Forensic Sci Int 2002c 130 : 29 33.
33. Farkas LG, Forrest CR, Litsas L. Revision of neoclassical facial canons in young adult Afro-Americans. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000 24 : 179 84.
34. Helmer RP, Rohricht S, Petersen D, Mohr F. Assessment of the reliability of facial reconstruction. In: Iscan MY, Helmer RP, editors. Forensic analysis of the skull. New York : Wiley-Liss, 1993.
35. Stephan CN, Arthur RS. Assessing facial approximation accuracy: how do resemblance ratings of disparate faces compare to recognition tests? Forensic Sci Int 2006 159S : S159 63.
36. Malpass RS, Devine PG. Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In : Lloyd-Bostock SMA, Clifford BR, editors. Evaluating witness evidence: recent psychological research and new perspectives. New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1983 81 102.
37. Wells GL. What do we know about eyewitness identification? Am Psychol 1993 48 : 553 71.
38. Gonzalez R, Ellsworth PC, Pembroke M. Response biases in lineups and showups. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993 64 : 525 37.
39. Lindsay RCL, Lea JA, Nosworthy GJ, Fulford JA, Hector J, LeVan V, et al. Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem. J Appl Psychol 1991a 76 : 796 802.
40. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL. Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. J Appl Psychol 1985 70 : 556 64.
41. Melara RD, DeWitt-Rickards TS, O'Brien TP. Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: two codes are better than one. J Appl Psychol 1989 74 : 706 13.
42. Lindsay RCL, Lea JA, Fulford JA. Sequential lineup presentation: technique matters. J Appl Psychol 1991b 76 : 741 5.
43. Cutler BL, Penrod SD. Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: lineup construction and presentation. J Appl Psychol 1988 73 : 281 90.
44. Suzuki T. Reconstitution of a skull. Int Crim Police Rev 1973 264 : 76 80.
45. Krogman WM. The reconstruction of the living head from the skull. FBI Law Enforce Bull 1946 17 : 11 7.
46. Stephan CN, Henneberg M. Building faces from dry skulls: are they recognized above chance rates? J Forensic Sci 2001 46 : 432 40.
47. Snow CC, Gatliff BP, McWilliams KR. Reconstruction of facial features from the skull: an evaluation of its usefulness in forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol 1970 33 : 221 8.
48. Stephan CN, Penton-Voak IS, Clement JG, Henneberg M. Ceiling recognition limits of two-dimensional facial approximations constructed using averages. In : Clement JG, Marks M, editors. Computer graphic facial reconstruction. Boston : Academic Press, 2005 199 219.