Advertisement

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 179–187 | Cite as

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

  • Caroline WilkinsonEmail author
  • Chris Rynn
  • Heather Peters
  • Myke Taister
  • Chung How Kau
  • Stephen Richmond
Original Article

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.

Key Words

Forensic facial reconstruction computerized facial reconstruction accurary computed tomography CT 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Taylor K. Forensic Art and Illustration. Boca Raton, RL; CRC Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gatliff BP. Facial sculpture on the skull for identification. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1984;5:327–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerasimov MM. The Face Finder: New York: Lippincott, 1971.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prag J, Neave RAH. Making Faces. London: British Museum Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moss JP, Linney AD, Grindrod SR, Arridge SR, Clifton JS. 3-dimensional visualisation of the face and skull using computerised tomography and laser scanning techniques. Eur J Orthod 1984;9:247–253.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahler K, Haber J, Seidel HP. Reanimating the dead: reconstruction of expressive faces from skull data. ACM SIGGRAPH conference proceedings, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilkinson CM. Virtual sculpture as a method of computerized facial reconstruction. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Reconstruction of Soft Facial Parts, Potsdam, German, 2003, 59–63.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Von Eggling H. Die leistungsfahigkeitphysiognomischer rekonstruktionsversuche auf grundlage des schädels. Arch Anthropol 1913;12:44–47.Google Scholar
  9. 8a.
    Wilder HH, Wentworth B. Personal Identification. Boston, MA: Gormon Press, 1918.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Stadtmuller F. Zur beurteilung der plastischen rekonstruktionsmethode der physiognomie auf dem schädel. J Morphol Anthropol 1922;22:337–372.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Kollman J. Die weichteile des gesichts und die persistenz der rassen. Anatomisch anzeiger 1898;15:165–177.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Krogman WM. The reconstruction of the living head from the skull. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 1946: pp. 11–18.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    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: 221–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 13.
    Helmer R, Rohricht S, Petersen D, Mohr F. Assessment of the reliability of facial reconstruction. In: Iscan MY, Helmer RP, eds. Forensic Analysis of the Skull, New York: Wiley Liss Publications, 1993, pp. 229–247.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Wilkinson CM, Whittaker DK, Juvenile forensic facial reconstruction—a detailed accuracy study. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the International Association of Craniofacial Identification, Bari, Italy, 2002, pp. 98–110.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Stephan C, Henneberg M. Building faces from dry skulls—are they recognised above chance rates? J Forensic Sci 2001; 46:432–440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    Vanezis P, Vanezis M, McCombe G, Niblett T. Facial reconstruction using 3-D computer graphics. Forensic Sci Int 2000; 108:81–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    Evenhouse RM, Rasmussen M, Sadler L. Computer-aided forensic facial reconstruction. J Biol Chem 1992;19:22–28.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Nelson LA, Michael SD. The application of volume deformation to 3-D facial reconstruction; a comparison with previous techniques. Forensic Sci Int. 1998;94:167–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    Stratomeier H, Spee J, Wittwer-Backofen, U, Bakker R. Methods of Forensic Facial Reconstruction. Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Reconstruction of Soft Facial Parts (RSFP), Remagen, Germany, 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Ubelaker DH, O'Donnell G. Computer assisted facial reproduction. J Forensic Sci 1992;37:155–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    Miyasaka S, Yoshino M, Imaizumi K, Seta S. The computeraided facial reconstruction system. Forensic Sci Int 1995;74:155–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    Manhein MH, Barsley RE, Listi GA, Musselman R, Barrow NE, Ubelaker DH. In vivo facial tissue depth measurements for children and adults. J Forensic Sci 2000;45: 48–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 23.
    Wilkinson CM. Forensic Facial Reconstruction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Van Rensburg MSJ Accuracy of recognition of three-dimensional plastic reconstruction of faces from skulls. Proceedings of Anatomical Society South Africa, 23rd Annual Congress 20 (abstract), 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Bruce V, Healey P, Burton M, Doyle T, Coombes A, Linney A. Recognising facial surfaces. Perception 1991;20:755–769.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.
    Bruce V, Henderson Z, Greenwood K, Hancock PJB. Verification of face identities from images captured on video. J Exp Psychol App 1999;5:339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 27.
    De Greef S, Claes P, Molleman W, Vandermeulen D. Semiautomated ultrasound facial soft-tissue depth registration: method, validation and preliminary results. Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Reconstruction of Soft Facial Parts (RSFP), Remagen, Germany, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Wilkinson
    • 3
    Email author
  • Chris Rynn
    • 3
  • Heather Peters
    • 1
  • Myke Taister
    • 1
  • Chung How Kau
    • 2
  • Stephen Richmond
    • 2
  1. 1.FBIWashington DC
  2. 2.Department of Health and Biological SciencesUniversity Dental HospitalUK
  3. 3.School of Life SciencesUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations