Comprehension of the complex shape of the auricle and how it differs in terms of factors such as sex, age, and side have become an imperative aspect of the fabrication and service delivery of products that are natural, functional, and healthy for users.
OBJECTIVE:
This study was aimed at providing a clear understanding of the anthropometric characteristics based on age, sex, size, and side and shape type of the auricles of mainland Chinese samples.
METHODS:
Casting and 3D scanning were employed to obtain eighteen auricular measurement variables from 1120 subjects (aged 15–79). Examination of sex-related and bilateral differences were conducted. Furthermore, factor analysis was employed to establish the factors associated with the variations in auricular shape. Also, hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to classify the auricular shapes of individuals.
RESULTS:
The auricular inclination angle, conchal depth and tragal height did not exhibit any specific trend across the age groups. No significant bilateral difference was observed in both genders. The auricular shapes were classified into five types according to six major factors.
CONCLUSIONS:
It was observed that measurement variables of the Chinese auricles changed continuously with age, with most of the linear variables exhibiting a steady increase. The apparent strong association between the auricular types and age groups indicate that a person’s auricular shape may change with age.
AlexanderKS, StottDJ, SivakumarB, KangN. A morphometric study of the human ear. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):41–7.
2.
StandringSGray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. 41st ed. Elsevier; 2016.
3.
JungHS, JungHS. Surveying the dimensions and characteristics of Korean ears for the ergonomic design of ear-related products. Int J Ind Ergon. 2003;31(6):361–73.
4.
StavrakosS, Ahmed-KristensenS, GoldmanT. Using archetypes to create user panels for usability studies: Streamlining focus groups and user studies. Applied Ergonomics. 2016;56:108–16.
5.
JovicTH, StewartK, KonM, WhitakerIS. Auricular reconstruction: A sociocultural, surgical and scientific perspective. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2020;73(8):1424–33.
6.
LeeW, JungH, BokI, KimC, KwonO, ChoiT, YouH. Measurement and Application of 3D Ear images for earphone design. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2016;60(1):1053–7.
7.
FanH, YuS, WangM, LiM, ChuJ, YanY, ZhangS, ChenD, Harris-AdamsonC. Analysis of the external acoustic meatus for ergonomic design: Part I –measurement of the external acoustic meatus using casting, scanning and rapid estimation approaches. Ergonomics. 2021;64(5):640–56.
8.
MansfieldN, NaddeoA, FrohriepS, VinkP. Integrating and applying models of comfort. Appl Ergon. 2020;82:102917.
9.
TakadaMM, RochaCH, Neves-LoboIF, MoreiraRR, SamelliAG. Training in the proper use of earplugs: An objective evaluation. Work. 2020;65(2):401–7.
10.
AliabadiM, BiabaniA, GolmohammadiR, FarhadianM. A study of the real-world noise attenuation of the current hearing protection devices in typical workplaces using Field Microphone in Real Ear method. Work. 2018;60(2):271–9.
11.
BravoG, BragancaS, ArezesPM, MolenbroekJFM, CastellucciHI. A literature review of anthropometric studies of school students for ergonomics purposes: Are accuracy, precision and reliability being considered? Work2018;60(1):3–17.
12.
MohdShukoor NS, MohdTamrin SB, GuanNY, MohdSuadi Nata DH. Development of new hard hat dimensions using user-centered design approach among oil palm harvesters. Work. 2018;60(1):129–34.
13.
Castellucci, HI, VivianiCA, MolenbroekJFM, ArezesPM, MartínezM, ApariciV, BragancaS, BravoG. Secular changesin the anthropometrics of chilean workers and its implication indesign. Work. 2021;68(1):137–47.
14.
VinkP. Comfort and design. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2005.
15.
Harris-AdamsonC, ChenB, JanowitzI, RempelDM. Ergonomic evaluation of an alternative tool for cake decorating. Int J Ind Ergon. 2017;57:63–7.
16.
WangM, FanH, HarrisC, YuS. Anthropometric characteristics of chinese auricles for ergonomic design. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2019;63(1):1962–3.
17.
LeeW, YangX, JungH, BokI, KimC, KwonO, YouH. Anthropometric analysis of 3D ear scans of Koreans and Caucasians for ear product design. Ergonomics. 2018;61(11):1480–95.
18.
BanK, JungES. Ear shape categorization for ergonomic product design. Int J Ind Ergon. 2020(April):102962.
19.
PurkaitR, SinghP. Anthropometry of the normal human auricle: A study of adult Indian men. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31(4):372–9.
20.
MurgodV, AngadiP, HallikerimathS, KaleA. Anthropometric study of the external ear and its applicability in sex identification: Assessed in an Indian sample. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2013;45(4):431–44.
21.
BozkırMG, KarakasP, YavuzM, DereF. Morphometry of the external ear in our adult population. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006;30(1):81–5.
22.
WangB, DongY, ZhaoY, BaiS, WuG. Computed tomography measurement of the auricle in Han population of north China. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2011;64(1):34–40.
23.
LiuBS. Incorporating anthropometry into design of ear-related products. Appl Ergon. 2008;39(1):115–21.
24.
JiX, ZhuZ, GaoZ, BaiX, HuG. Anthropometry and classification of auricular concha for the ergonomic design of earphones. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2018;28(2):90–9.
25.
RoebuckJA, CasaliJG. Casali JG. Re-inventing anthropometry for design of earmounted or ear-coupled products. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc. 2011;1649-53.
26.
SickelK,BalochS, MelkisetogluR, BubnikV, AzernikovS, FangT. Toward automation in hearing aid design. CAD Comput. Aided Des. 2011;43(12):1793–802.
27.
StavrakosS-K, Ahmed-KristensenS. Methods of 3D data applications to inform design decisions for physical comfort. Work. 2016;55(2):321–34.
28.
RoebuckJA. Aerospace and ergonomic methods for ear anthropometry supported by bulgarian research. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2019;63(1):1699–703.
29.
FuF, LuximonY. Asystematic reviewon ear anthropometry and its industrial design applications. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2020;(April 2019):1-19.
30.
FuF, LuximonY, ShahP. A Growth Study of Chinese Ears Using 3D Scanning. In: Digital Human Modeling. Springer International Publishing; 2018, pp. 54–63.
31.
JapattiSR, EngineerPJ, ManjunathaRB, TiwariAU, SiddegowdaCY, HammannavarRB. Anthropometric assessment of the normal adult human ear. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2018;8(1):42–50.
32.
MaL, TsaoL, YuC, ZhouW. Quick Method to Extract Earphone-Related Ear Dimensions Using Two Dimensional (2D) Image. In: Advances in Ergonomics in Design. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018, pp. 321–8.
33.
MououdiMA, AkbariJ, MohammadiKhoshoei M. Measuring the external ear for hearing protection device design. Ergon Des. 2018;26(3):4–8.
34.
GuoZ, LuY, ZhouH, LiZ, FanY, YuG. Anthropometric-based clustering of pinnae and its application in personalizing HRTFs. Int J Ind Ergon. 2021;81(January):103076.
35.
ZhaoS, LiD, LiuZ, WangY, LiuL, JiangD, PanB. Anthropometric growth study of the ear in a Chinese population. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018;71(4):518–23.
36.
FarkasLG, PosnickJC, HreczkoTM. Anthropometric growth study of the ear. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 1992;29(4):324–9.
37.
PurkaitR. Progression of growth in the external ear from birth to maturity: A 2-year follow-up study in India. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37(3):605–16.
38.
SongH, ShinGW, YoonY, BahnS. The effects of ear dimensions and product attributes on the wearing comfort of wireless earphones. Appl Sci. 2020;10(24):1–15.
39.
ChiuHP, ChiangHY, LiuCH, WangMH, ChiouWK. Surveying the comfort perception of the ergonomic design of bluetooth earphones. Work. 2014;49(2):235–43.
40.
LuP, TsaoL, YuC, MaL. Survey of ear anthropometry for young college students in China and its implications for ear-related product design. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2021;31(1):86–97.
41.
Standards Administration of the People’s Republic of China. 1988. GB/T 10000-1988: Human Dimensions of Chinese Adults. Beijing: Standard Press of China.
42.
Standards Administration of the People’s Republic of China. 1998. GB/T 2428-1998: Head-Face Dimensions of Adults. Beijing: Standard Press of China.
43.
LeeW, YangX, YoonS, LeeB, JeonE, KimH, YouH. Comparison of a semiautomatic protocol using plastering and three-dimensional scanning techniques with the direct measurement protocol for hand anthropometry. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2017;27(3):138–46.
44.
KuoCC, WangMJ, LuJM. Developing sizing systems using 3D scanning head anthropometric data. Meas J Int Meas Confed. 2020;152:107264.
45.
PeresSC, MehtaRK, RitcheyP. Assessing ergonomic risks of software: Development of the SEAT. Appl Ergon. 2017;59:377–86.
46.
WardJH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc. 1963;58:236–44.
47.
HairJF, AndersonRE, TathamRL, BlackWC Multivariate Data Analyses with Readings. 4th ed. 1995, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
48.
ParkW, ParkS. Body shape analyses of large persons in South Korea. Ergonomics. 2013;56(4):692–706.
49.
AhmedAA, OmerN. Estimation of sex from the anthropometric ear measurements of a Sudanese population. Leg Med. 2015;17(5):313–9.
50.
KalciogluMT, MimanMC, TopluY, YakinciC, OzturanO. Anthropometric growth study of normal human auricle. Int JPediatr Otorhinolaryngol.. 2003;67(11):1169–77.
51.
FanH, YuS, WangM, LiM, ZhaoX, RenY, ZhangS, ChenD, HarrisAdamson C. Analysis of the external acoustic meatus for ergonomic design: Part II –anthropometric variations of the external acoustic meatus by sex, age and side in Chinese population. Ergonomics. 2021;64(5):657–70.
52.
AzariaR, AdlerN, SilfenR, RegevD, HaubenDJ. Morphometry of the adult human earlobe: A study of 547 subjects and clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(7):2398–402.
Harris-AdamsonC, LamE, FathallahF, TongAD, HillS, SmithA. The ergonomic impact of a mattress lift tool and bottom sheet type on hotel room cleaners while making beds. Appl Ergon. 2019;81(June):102880.
