Comparing the face to the body, which is better for identification?

Abstract

As early as the nineteenth century, measurements of the face and body were used for forensic identification. It was believed that no two individuals had the exact same measurements. However, this was overtaken by fingerprint analysis because it was considered more reliable in court proceedings as the probabilities of finding matching individuals could be calculated. With the standardisation of photographs, identification primarily occurs from the face. With the ability to take measurements from photographs, why not use the body? The Army Anthropometry Survey (ANSUR) database contains anthropometric measurements of 3982 individuals. Eight facial and eight body measurements were compared to investigate whether or not there is enough information on the body to use for identification. Measurements were compared by adding one measurement to the other(s) in a stepwise approach until there were no duplicate cases where two or more individuals share the same combination of measurements. Results consistently show that less body measurements are needed to find no duplicates when compared to the face. The larger the range of each of the measurements, the less chance there is of finding a duplicate. With the combination of eight body measurements, it is possible to achieve a probability of finding a duplicate to the order of 10−20 or 1 in a quintillion. These results are comparable with fingerprint analysis. The body is more variable than the face and should be used in identification. An advantage to using the body is that larger dimensions are easier to locate on images and not affected by facial expression.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Barrett HC (2008) Evolved cognitive mechanisms of human behaviour. In: Crawford C, Krebs D (eds) Foundations of evolutionary psychology: ideas, issues, applications and findings, 2nd edn. Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 173–190

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Henneberg M (2007) Facial mapping, body mapping and the duties of an expert witness. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/pdo/ll_pdo.nsf/pages/PDO_facialmapping

  3. 3.

    Bertillon A (1886) Identification anthropometriques. Methode nouvelle de determination de L’iidentiteindividuelle. Masson, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bertillon A (1890) La photographiejudiciaire, avec unappendicesur la classification et l’identificationanthropometrique. Gauthier-Villars, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jain AK, Prabhakar S, Pankanti S (2002) On the similarity of identical twin fingerprints. Pattern Recogn 35:2653–2663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pankanti S, Prabhakar S, Jain AK (2002) On the individuality of fingerprints. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24:1010–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bagchi P, Bhattacharjee D, Nasipuri M, Basu DK (2014) Registration of three dimensional human face images across pose and their applications in digital forensic. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Best-Rowden L, Han H, Otto C, Klare B, Jain AK (2014) Unconstrained face recognition: identifying a person of interest from a media collection. MSU Technical report. p 14-1

  9. 9.

    Mukane D, Hundiwale SM, Dere P (2014) Emerging forensic face matching technology to apprehend criminals: a survey. IJAET 7:255–262

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Jain AK, Klare B, Park U (2012) Face matching and retrieval in forensic applications. Multimed IEEE 19:20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chen S, Mau S, Harandi M, Sanderson C, Bigdeli A, Lovell B (2010) Face recognition from still images to video sequences: a local-feature-based framework. J Image Video Process 2011:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Knussmann R (1988) Anthropologie. Bd I/1. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Knussmann R (1983) Die vergleichendemorphologischeAnalysealsIdentitatsnachweis. Strafverteidiger 3:127–129

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Rösing F (2006) Identification von Personen auf Bildern. Verlag C.H Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rösing F (2013) Morphologische Identifikation von Personen. Grundlagen, Merkmale, Häufigkeiten. In: Buck J, Hrg KB (eds) Sachverständigenbeweis im Verkehrs- und Strafrecht, 2nd edn. Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 287–440

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Edmond G (2008) Specialised knowledge, the exclusionary discretions and reliability: Reassessing incriminating expert opinion evidence. UNSW Law J 31:1–55

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Edmond G, Biber K, Kemp R, Porter G (2009) Law’s looking glass: expert identification evidence derived from photographic and video images. CurrIss Crim Just 20:337–376

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Edmond G (2010) Impartiality, efficiency or reliability? A critical response to expert evidence law and procedure in Australia. Aust J Forensic Sci 42:83–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Biber K (2009) Visual jurisprudence: the dangers of photographic identification evidence. CJM 78:35–37

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Scoleri T, Henneberg M (2012) View-independent prediction of body dimensions in crowded environments. International conference on Digital Image Computing Techniques and Applications (DICTA); 3–5 December 2012; Fremantle. 2 p

  21. 21.

    Scoleri T, Lucas T, Henneberg M (2014) Effect of garments on photoanthropometry of body parts: application of stature estimation. Forensic Sci Int 237:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zhao W, Chellappa R, Phillips PJ, Rosenfeld A (2003) Face recognition: a literature survey. ACM Comput Surv 35:399–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Frith H, Gleeson K (2004) Clothing and embodiment: men managing body image and appearance. Psych Men Masc 5:40–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Fan J, Yu W, Hunter L (2004) Clothing appearance and fit: science and technology. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Meekins F (2006) Optical illusion wear. US Patent. Patent no. US:7,107,621, B2

  26. 26.

    Lucas T, Kumaratilake J, Henneberg M (2014) The extent to which garments affect the body shapes of males from faceless CCTV images. J Biol Clin Anthrop 71:259–274

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Larsen PK, Hansen L, Simonsen EB, Lynnerup N (2008) Variability of bodily measures of normally dressed people using photomodeler pro 5. J Forensic Sci 53:1393–1399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hancock P, Bruce V, Burton M (2000) Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends Cogn Sci 4:330–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Henderson Z, Bruce V, Burton M (2001) Matching the faces of robbers captured on video. Appl Cogn Psych 15:445–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bouchrika I, Goffredo M, Carter J, Nixon M (2011) On using gait in forensic biometrics. J Forensic Sci 56:882–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Larsen PK, Simonsen EB, Lynnerup N (2008) Gait analysis in forensic medicine. J Forensic Sci 53:1149–1153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    BenAbdelkader C, Davis LS (2006) Estimation of anthropomeasures from a single calibrated camera. International conference on automatic face and gesture recongnition; 2–6 April 2006; Southhampton. p 5

  33. 33.

    BenAbdelkader C, Yacoob Y (2008) Statistical body height estimation from a single image. International conference on automatic face and gesture recognition; 17–19 September 2008; Amsterdam. p 7

  34. 34.

    Jain AK, Dass SC, Nandakumar K (2004) Can soft biometric traits assist user recognition?. Proc SPIE; 12 April 2004; Bellingham. p 12

  35. 35.

    ANSUR database (1988) Clauser CE, Tebbetts IO, Bradtmiller B, McConville JT, Gordon CC Measurer’s Handbook: US ArmyAnthropometric Survey 1987–1988, Technical Report NATICK/TR-88/043. Gordon CC, Bradtmiller B, Churchill T, Clauser CE, McConville JT, Tebbetts IO, Walker RA 1988. Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics, Technical Report NATICK/TR-89/044, United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts

  36. 36.

    Henneberg M (1990) Brain size/body weight variability in Homo sapiens: consequences for interpreting hominid evolution. HOMO 39:121–130

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Henneberg M (2010) The Illusive concept of human variation: thirty years of teaching biological anthropology on four continents. In: Štrkalj G (ed) Teaching human variation. Nova Science, New York, pp 33–43

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cavalli-Sforza LL, Bodmer WF (1971) The genetics of human population. WH Freeman and company, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Gordon, Claire C, Blackwell CL, Bradtmiller B, Parham JL, Hotzman J, Paquette SP, Corner BD, Hodge BM (2010) Anthropometric Survey of US Marine Corps Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics. No. NATICK/TR-13/018. Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center MA, 2013

  40. 40.

    Wang Y, Tan T, Jain AK (2003) Combining face and iris biometrics for identity verification. In Audio and video based biometric person authentication. Berlin: Springer, p 805–813

  41. 41.

    Jobling MA, Gill P (2004) Encoded evidence: DNA in forensic analysis. Nat Rev Genet 5:739–751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR (2005) Internation anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 16:615–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Zhuang Z, Landsittel D, Benson S, Roberge R, Shaffer R (2010) Facial anthropometric differences among gender, ethnicity and age groups. Ann Occup Hyg 1:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Henneberg M, Veitch D (2003) National size and shape survey of Australia. Kinanthreport 16:34–39

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Henneberg M, Veitch D (2005) Is obesity as measured by body mass index, and waist circumference in adult Australian women 2002 just a result of the lifestyle? J Hum Ecol (Spec Issue) 13:85–89

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teghan Lucas.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lucas, T., Henneberg, M. Comparing the face to the body, which is better for identification?. Int J Legal Med 130, 533–540 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-015-1158-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Physical anthropometry
  • Forensics
  • Duplication
  • ANSUR