↓ Skip to main content

A blind accuracy assessment of computer-modeled forensic facial reconstruction using computed tomography data from live subjects

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology, September 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
A blind accuracy assessment of computer-modeled forensic facial reconstruction using computed tomography data from live subjects
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology, September 2006
DOI 10.1007/s12024-006-0007-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Wilkinson, Chris Rynn, Heather Peters, Myke Taister, Chung How Kau, Stephen Richmond

Abstract

A computer modeling system for facial reconstruction has been developed that employs a touch-based application to create anatomically accurate facial models focusing on skeletal detail. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the system and illustrates its accuracy and reliability with a blind study using computed tomography (CT) data of living individuals. Three-dimensional models of the skulls of two white North American adults (one male, one female) were imported into the computer system. Facial reconstructions were produced by two practitioners following the Manchester method. Two posters were produced, each including a face pool of five surface model images and the facial reconstruction. The face pool related to the sex, age, and ethnic group of the target individual and included the surface model image of the target individual. Fifty-two volunteers were asked to choose the face from the face pool that most resembled each reconstruction. Both reconstructions received majority percentage hit rates that were at least 50% greater than any other face in the pool. The combined percentage hit rate was 50% above chance (70%). A quantitative comparison of the facial morphology between the facial reconstructions and the CT scan models of the subjects was carried out using Rapidform(™) 2004 PP2-RF4. The majority of the surfaces of the facial reconstructions showed less than 2.5 mm error and 90% of the male face and 75% of the female face showed less than 5 mm error. Many of the differences between the facial reconstructions and the facial scans were probably the result of positional effects caused during the CT scanning procedure, especially on the female subject who had a fatter face than the male subject. The areas of most facial reconstruction error were at the ears and nasal tip.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unknown 3 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2012.
All research outputs
#2,819,255
of 12,477,497 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology
#69
of 448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,875
of 145,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,477,497 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 448 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 145,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them