Cited by 21Skin Protection and AgingColor Science and Applicationsmelanin and skin pigmentation

Cosmetics increase skin evenness: evidence from perceptual and physical measures

Batres, Carlota, Porcheron, Aurélie, Latreille, Julie, Roche, Magalie, Morizot, Frédérique, Russell, Richard·2019·Skin Research and Technology

Abstract

Background Cosmetics are commonly attributed with increasing skin evenness, yet little published data characterizes the effect, either perceptually or physically. We therefore investigated whether makeup increases skin evenness using a perceptual measurement and two physical measurements of color and luminance homogeneity. Materials and methods Twenty-two French women (aged 29-45 years) were photographed without cosmetics, with self-applied cosmetics, and with professionally-applied cosmetics. In Study 1, 143 participants rated skin evenness. In Study 2, each face was delineated to create regions of interest (ROI) in the cheek and forehead areas. Both ROIs were then analyzed for luminance homogeneity using an established measure (Haralick homogeneity) and a new measure that incorporates chromaticity (H 76 ). Results In Study 1, the faces were rated as having more even-looking skin with either self-applied cosmetics or professionally-applied cosmetics than without cosmetics. In Study 2, the luminance homogeneity measure found that the cheek ROI, but not the forehead ROI, was more homogeneous after both self-applied cosmetics and professionally-applied cosmetics when compared to without cosmetics. The new measure incorporating chromaticity found greater homogeneity in both ROIs in the two cosmetics conditions. The new measure incorporating chromaticity also better predicted the perceived skin evenness ratings from Study 1. Conclusion These results provide systematic empirical e…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/srt.12700

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Batres, C., Porcheron, A., Latreille, J., Roche, M., Morizot, F., & Russell, R.
Affiliations
  • Franklin & Marshall College (US)
  • CHANEL Fragrance & Beauty Research & Innovation Pantin France
  • Newtone Technologies Lyon France
  • Gettysburg College (US)
Corresponding author
Batres, Carlota
Venue
Skin Research and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-20
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
672-676
ISSN
  • 0909-752X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0846
OpenAlex
W2945529019
Cited by
21
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Skin Research and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College (Gettysburg College) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Color Science and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
Keywords
cosmetics, makeup, color uniformity, chromaticity, facial appearance, skin color
MeSH terms
Adult, Cosmetics, Esthetics, Face, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Perception, Photography, Skin Pigmentation, Skin Aging

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