CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Estimating the Skull-to-Camera Distance from Facial Photographs for Craniofacial Superimposition

Stephan, Carl N.·2017·Journal of Forensic Sciences
DOI 10.1111/1556-4029.13353
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The overlay of a skull and a face image for identification purposes requires similar subject‐to‐camera distances ( SCD ) to be used at both photographic sessions so that differences in perspective do not compromise the anatomical comparisons. As the facial photograph is the reference standard, it is crucial to determine its SCD first and apply this value to photography of the skull. So far, such a method for estimating the SCD has been elusive (some say impossible), compromising the technical validity of the superimposition procedure. This paper tests the feasibility of using the palpebral fissure length and a well‐established photographic algorithm to accurately estimate the SCD from the facial photograph. Recordings at known SCD across a 1–10 m range (repeated under two test conditions) demonstrate that the newly formulated method works: a mean SCD estimation error of 7% that translates into <1% perspective distortion error between estimated and actual conditions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1556-4029.13353

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For classification schemes to be effective, they need to be tailored to specific populations, which has only been considered by two studies to date.

    “In addition, for classification schemes to be effective, they need to be tailored to specific populations, which has only been considered by two studies to date [58,127].”

    From Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [127]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Taylor JA, 1998, Craniofacial identification in forensic medicine, 151
  2. 10.1111/1556-4029.12842 · DOI
  3. Stephan CN, 2009, Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology, 304
  4. 10.1017/CBO9781139049566.019 · DOI
  5. 10.1520/JFS14538J · DOI
  6. 10.1007/BF00204076 · DOI
  7. Rosenblatt A, 2015, Digging for the disappeared: forensic science after atrocity
  8. 10.1080/00085030.1989.10757432 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.10.043 · DOI
  10. 10.1080/00085030.1989.10757415 · DOI
  11. 10.1093/biomet/26.3.1 · DOI
  12. Glaister J, 1937, Medico‐legal aspects of the Ruxton case
  13. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00624.x · DOI
  14. 10.1016/0379-0738(95)01742-2 · DOI
  15. Chai D‐S, 1989, A study on the standard for forensic anthropologic identification of skull‐image superimposition, J Forensic Sci, 34, 1343, 10.1520/JFS12776J · DOI
  16. Jayaprakash PT, 2010, Computer aided video superimposition device: a novel contribution to skull based identification in Malaysia, Hlth Environ J, 1, 65
  17. 10.1097/00000433-198203000-00009 · DOI
  18. Gordon GM, 2012, An investigation into the accuracy and reliability of skull‐photo superimposition in a South African sample, Forensic Sci Int, 3, 198
  19. Brown KA, 1983, Developments in cranio‐facial superimposition for identification, J Forensic Odonto‐Somatol, 1, 57
  20. Brown KA, 1993, The Truro murders in retrospect: a historical review of the identification of the victims, Ann Acad Med Sing, 22, 103
  21. Sekharan PC, 1993, Forensic analysis of the skull, 105
  22. 10.2307/1142133 · DOI
  23. Sekharan PC, 1973, A scientific method for positioning of the skull for photography in superimposition studies, J Pol Sci Admin, 1, 232
  24. 10.1002/9781118255377.ch21 · DOI
  25. 10.1520/JFS11221J · DOI
  26. Marshall D, 2006, Killing for pleasure
  27. Pudney J, 2006, The bodies in the Barrels murders
  28. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.07.045 · DOI
  29. 10.1520/JFS13615J · DOI
  30. Lan Y, 1993, Forensic analysis of the skull, 119
  31. Gordon GM, 2016, A discussion of current issues and concepts in the practice of skull‐photo/craniofacial superimposition, Forensic Sci Int, 262, e1
  32. 10.1520/JFS11568J · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.04.026 · DOI
  34. İşcan MY, 2013, The human skeleton in forensic medicine
  35. 10.1016/0379-0738(89)90215-6 · DOI
  36. 10.1002/ajpa.1330100318 · DOI
  37. 10.1117/3.43160 · DOI
  38. Scully B, 2002, Determining the validity of Furue's method of craniofacial superimposition for identification, Ann Dent Univ Mal, 9, 17, 10.22452/adum.vol9no1.4 · DOI
  39. TaylorJ.Distortion in craniofacial video superimposition[Masters thesis].Adelaide Australia:The University of Adelaide 1991.
  40. Titlbach Z, 1970, Beitrage zur Bewertung der Superprojektionsmethode zur identifizierung unbekannter Skelettfunde. Kriminalistik und forensische Wissenschaften, 179
  41. 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_149 · DOI
  42. Grüner O, 1959, Eine photgraphischen verfahren zur schädelidentifizierung, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Gerichtliche Medizin, 47, 247
  43. 10.1016/0379-0738(95)01744-4 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.062 · DOI
  45. Hashimoto M, 1992, A study of the superimposition technique as a positive identification method, Shikawa Gakuho, 92, 409
  46. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Farkas LG, 1994, Anthropometry of the head and face
  48. Bookstein FL, 1991, Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology
  49. Farkas LG, 1994, Anthropometry of the head and face, 241
  50. Caroline PJ, 2002, The effect of corneal diameter on soft lens fitting, part 1, Contact Lens Spect, 17, 56
  51. Farkas LG, 1994, Anthropometry of the head and face, 337
  52. Farkas LG, 1994, Anthropometry of the head and face, 347

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stephan, C. N.
Affiliations
Laboratory for Human Craniofacial and Skeletal Identification (HuCS‐ID Lab) School of Biomedical Sciences The University of Queensland Brisbane 4072 Australia
ORCID
Stephan, Carl N.
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-01-18
Volume
62
Issue
4
Pages
850-860
ISSN
  • 0022-1198
  • 1556-4029
DOI
10.1111/1556-4029.13353
Cited by
21
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review