To establish the physical basis of subjective judgments of facial appearance, two novel computer-imaging programs differing in method of preparation and presentation of 5 features of the facial soft-tissue profile of 4 faces representing 4 different classifications of dental occlusion were compared. Images of facial soft tissue of 5 features were digitized and “animated” from 16 discrete distortions or morphed from the two extremes of each feature. 12 volunteer judges responded to both the “animated” and morphed presentations by pressing the computer mouse button when the image became acceptable and releasing the button when the image was no longer acceptable. They also pressed the mouse button when the most pleasing distortion appeared from either direction. Aggregating responses to counterbalanced trials and features across judges yielded high correlations between the programs for midpoint of acceptability. Although both programs provide reliable and valid measures of subjective acceptability of present and proposed changes in facial morphology, the new morphing program is more user-friendly than the “animated” method.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngleE. H. (1907) Malocclusion of the teeth. (7th ed.) Philadelphia, PA: SS White Dental Mfg. Co.
2.
BackstromM. J.AshmoreR. D. (1990) The multiplicity of physical attractiveness: Categories and dimensions underlying college students' everyday language of beauty. Eastern Psychological Association, 1990 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. [Abstract].
3.
BartkoJ. J. (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports, 19, 3–11.
4.
BellR.KiyakH. A.JoondephD. R.McNeillR. W.WallenT. R. (1985) Perceptions of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. American Journal of Orthodontics, 88, 323–332.
5.
BergemannK.AshmoreR. D. (1990) Physical unattractiveness as a psychological multiplicity: Categories and dimensions underlying college students' everyday language of ugliness. Eastern Psychological Association, 1990 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. [Abstract].
6.
BraunsteinM. L.AndersonG. J. (1984) Shape and depth perception from parallel projections of three-dimensional motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 749–760.
7.
BurcalR. G.LaskinD. M.SperryT. P. (1987) Recognition of profile change after simulated orthognathic surgery. Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery, 45, 666–670.
8.
FarkasL. G. (1994) Examination. In Anthropometry of the head and face. (2nd ed.) New York: Raven. Pp. 3–56.
9.
GiddonD. B. (1995) Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Seminars in Orthodontics, 1, 82–93.
10.
GiddonD. B.MosierM.ColtonT.BulmanJ. S. (1976) Quantitative relationship between perceived and objective need for health care: Dentistry as a model system. Public Health Reports, 91, 508–513.
11.
GiddonD. B.SconzoR.KinchenJ. A.EvansC. A. (1994) Psychophysical comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preferences. Journal of Dental Research, 73, 368. [Abstract].
12.
GiddonD. B.SconzoR.KinchenJ. A.EvansC. A. (1996) Quantitative comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preferences. Angle Orthodontist.
13.
Gryphon Software Corporation. (1993) Morph (Windows Version 1.5). San Diego, CA: Author.
14.
HaxtonJ.GiddonD. B. (1985) Quantitation of tolerance for cranio-facial deviation. Journal of Dental Research, 64, 292.
15.
KitayD. R. (1993) Computer animated imaging to determine discrepancies between objective and subjective profile measures. Unpublished post-doctoral thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA.
16.
KitayD. R.KinchenJ. A.EvansC. A.GiddonD. B. (1993) Self perception of computer animated profiles in orthodontic/non-orthodontic patients. American Association of Orthodontists Annual Meeting Research Abstracts, 1, 38. [Abstract].
17.
LuckerG. W. (1981) Esthetics and a quantitative analysis of facial appearance. In LuckerG. W.RibbensK. A.McNamaraJ. A.Jr.(Eds.), Craniofacial growth series: Monograph No. 11. Psychological aspects of facial form. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth and Development. Pp. 49–80.
18.
MaxwellR.KiyakH. A. (1991) Dentofacial appearance: A comparison of patient self-assessment techniques. The International Journal of Adult Orthognathics and Orthognathic Surgery, 6, 123–131.
19.
OlzakL. A.ThomasJ. P. (1986) Seeing spatial patterns. In BoffK. R.KaufmannL.ThomasJ. P.(Eds.), Handbook of perception and performance. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley. Pp. 7–1–7–56.
20.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. (1957) The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: Univer. of Illinois Press.
21.
Prahl-AndersonB.BoersmaH.van der LindenF. P. G. M.MooreA. W. (1979) Perceptions of dentofacial morphology by laypersons, general dentists, and orthodontists. Journal of the American Dental Association, 98, 209–212.
22.
RosenthalR. (1987) Sampling judges and encoders. In Judgment studies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univer. Press. pp. 9–37.
23.
SolowB.TalgrenA. (1971) Natural head position in standing subjects. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 29, 591–607.
24.
SperlingG.LandyM. S. (1989) Kinetic depth effect and identification of shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 826–840.
25.
TedescoL. A.AlbinoJ. E.CunatJ. J.GreenL. J.LewisE. A. (1983) A dental-facial attractiveness scale: Part I. Reliability and validity. American Journal of Orthodontics, 83 (1), 38–43.
26.
ToddJ. T. (1994) On the optic sphere theory and the nature of visual information. In JanssonG.BergstromS. S.EpsteinW.(Eds.), Perceiving events and objects. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 471–478.
