The reproducibility of facial approximation accuracy results generated from photo-spread tests

Forensic Science International

Volumn 201, Issue 1-3, 2010, Pages 133-137

  Stephan, Carl N ^a,b   Cicolini, Jody ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b Hickam Air Force Base ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Face array; Face gallery; Face pool; Facial reconstruction; Facial reproduction; Forensic science

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRONIC SPREADSHEET; FACE; FACIAL EXPRESSION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; INDIVIDUALITY; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RECOGNITION; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY;

EID: 77955253774     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.028     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Eggeling H.v. Die Leistungsfahigkeit physiognomischer Rekonstruktionsversuche auf Grundlage des Schadels. Arch. Anthropol. 1913, 12:44-47.
2. Gerasimow M.M. Ich suchte Gesichter 1968, C. Bertelsmann Verlag, Gutersloh.
3. Stadtmüller F. Zur Beurteilung der plastischen Rekonstruktionsmethode der Physiognomie auf dem Schadel. Zeitsch. Morpholol. Anthropol. 1922, 22:337-372.
4. Snow C.C., Gatliff B.P., McWilliams K.R. Reconstruction of facial features from the skull: an evaluation of its usefulness in forensic anthropology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1970, 33:221-228.
5. Helmer R.P., Rohricht S., Petersen D., Mohr F. Assessment of the reliability of facial reconstruction. Forensic Analysis of the Skull 1993, 229-246. Wiley-Liss, New York. M.Y. Iscan, R.P. Helmer (Eds.).
6. Stephan C.N., Henneberg M. Building faces from dry skulls: are they recognized above chance rates?. J. Forensic Sci. 2001, 46:432-440.
7. Stephan C.N. The accuracy of facial " reconstruction": a review of the published data and their interpretive value. Minerva Medicoleg. 2009, 129:47-60.
8. Wilkinson C., Rynn C., Peters H., Taister M., How Kau C., Richmond S. A blind accuracy assessment of computer-modeled forensic facial reconstruction using computed tomography data from live subjects. Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 2006, 2:179-187.
9. Merckel F. Reconstruction der büste eines Bewohners des Leinegaues. Arch. Anthropol. 1900, 26:449-457.
10. Kollmann J., Büchly W. Die Persistenz der Rassen und die Reconstruction der Physiognomie prahistorischer Schadel. Arch. Anthropol. 1898, 25:329-359.
11. Gerasimov M.M. Vosstanovlenie lica po cerepu 1955, Izdat. Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moskva.
12. Prag J., Neave R. Making Faces: Using Forensic and Archaeological Evidence 1997, British Museum Press, London.
13. Wilkinson C. Forensic Facial Reconstruction 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Rathbun T.A. Personal identification: facial reproductions. Human Identification: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology 1984, 347-362. Charles C. Thomas, IL. T. Rathbun, J. Buikstra (Eds.).
15. Vanezis P., Blowes R.W., Linney A.D., Tan A.C., Richards R., Neave R. Application of 3-D computer graphics for facial reconstruction and comparison with sculpting techniques. Forensic Sci. Int. 1989, 42:69-84.
16. Taylor K.T. Forensic Art and Illustration 2001, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
17. Gibson L. Forensic Art Essentials 2008, Elsevier, Burlington.
18. Rogers S.L. Personal Identification from Human Remains 1987, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield.
19. Ellis H.D., Shepherd J.W., Davies G.M. Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: some implications for theories of face recognition. Perception 1979, 8:431-439.
20. Bruce V., Henderson Z., Newman C., Burton A.M. Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2001, 7:207-218.
21. Hancock P.J.B., Bruce V., Burton A.M. Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2000, 4:330-337.
22. Bruce V., Young A. Understanding face recognition. Br. J. Psychol. 1986, 77:305-327.
23. van J., Rensburg Accuracy of recognition of 3-dimensional plastic reconstruction of faces from skulls. Anatomical Society of Southern Africa 23rd Annual Congress 1993, 20.
24. Stephan C.N., Henneberg M. Recognition by facial approximation: case specific examples and empirical tests. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006, 156:182-191.
25. Stephan C.N., Arthur R.S. Assessing facial approximation accuracy: how do resemblance ratings of disparate faces compare to recognition tests?. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006, 159S:S159-S163.
26. Lindsay R.C.L., Wells G.L. Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1985, 70:556-564.
27. Lindsay R.C.L., Lea J.A., Nosworthy G.J., Fulford J.A., Hector J., LeVan V., Seabrook C. Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem. J. Appl. Psychol. 1991, 76:796-802.
28. Lindsay R.C.L., Lea J.A., Fulford J.A. Sequential lineup presentation: technique matters. J. Appl. Psychol. 1991, 76:741-745.
29. Stephan C.N., Cicolini J. Measuring the accuracy of facial approximations: a comparative study of resemblance rating and face array methods. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:58-64.
30. Lindsay R.C.L., Bellinger K. Alternatives to the sequential lineup: the importance of controlling the pictures. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84:315-321.
31. Cutler B.L., Penrod S.D. Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: lineup construction and presentation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1988, 73:281-290.
32. Clark S.E., Tunnicliff J.L. Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification experiments: experimental control and real-world simulation. Law Hum. Behav. 2001, 25:199-216.
33. Brewer N., Wells G.L. The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. J. Exp. Psychol. 2006, 12:11-30.
34. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1977, Academic Press, New York.
35. Stephan C.N. Craniofacial identification: techniques of facial approximation and craniofacial superimposition. Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology 2009, 304-321. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.).
36. Stephan C.N. Facial approximation: falsification of globe projection guideline by exophthalmometry literature. J. Forensic Sci. 2002, 47:1-6.
37. Stephan C.N. Facial approximation: an evaluation of mouth width determination. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2003, 121:48-57.
38. Stephan C.N., Davidson P.L. The placement of the human eyeball and canthi in craniofacial identification. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:612-619.
39. Stephan C.N., Devine M. The superficial temporal fat pad and its ramifications for temporalis muscle construction in facial approximation. Forensic Sci. Int. 2009, 191:70-79.
40. Stephan C.N., Henneberg M., Sampson W. Predicting nose projection and pronasale position in facial approximation: a test of published methods and proposal of new guidelines. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2003, 122:240-250.
41. Stephan C.N., Huang A.J.R., Davidson P.L. Further evidence on the anatomical placement of the human eyeball for facial approximation and craniofacial superimposition. J. Forensic Sci. 2009, 54:267-269.
42. Stephan C.N., Simpson E.K. Facial soft tissue depths in craniofacial identification (part I): an analytical review of the published adult data. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:1257-1272.
43. Rynn C., Wilkinson C.M. Appraisal of traditional and recently proposed relationships between the hard and soft dimensions of the nose in profile. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2006, 130:364-373.
44. Wilkinson C.M., Mautner S.A. Measurement of eyeball protrusion and its application in facial reconstruction. J. Forensic Sci. 2003, 48:12-16.
45. Wilkinson C.M., Motwani M., Chiang E. The relationship between the soft tissues and the skeletal detail of the mouth. J. Forensic Sci. 2003, 48:728-732.