A Preliminary Study of the Reliability of Anatomical Facial Landmarks Used in Facial Comparison

Abstract

Anatomical landmarks are considered the most objective indicators for use in forensic facial comparisons. Therefore, accurately identifying and locating these landmarks is the beginning of reliable facial comparison. This study evaluated the accuracy with which facial landmarks are located and examined their reliability according to type of landmark, head posture, and image quality. Nine operators located a series of landmarks on prepared facial images used to produce comparison images. Then, the average distances between the reciprocal landmarks (ADRL) on the reference and the comparison images were measured as indicators of landmark reliability. We found that a set of landmarks had higher or lower reliability as a function of the head angle and image quality. More reliable landmarks were associated with certain head postures and degrees of image quality. These should be used for facial comparison analysis depending on various head and image conditions.

Face similarity linkage: A novel biometric approach to sexually motivated serial killer victims

“…The aim was to see if there are trends that may inform investigators of the subconscious process of victim selection adopted by sexually motivated serial killers. The selection of these features for measurement was adapted from Tome, Vera‐Rodriguez, Fierrez, & Ortega‐Garcia (2015), Lee et al (2019), and Caple and Stephan (2016). A demonstration of the process of landmark identification and measuring for comparison was conducted on three randomly selected victims of Theodore Robert Bundy (Ted Bundy).…”

Comparative Assessment of a Novel Photo‐Anthropometric Landmark‐Positioning Approach for the Analysis of Facial Structures on Two‐Dimensional Images

“…The main reason for this arises from the fact that different examiners may have different interpretations of where a specific cephalometric landmark should be placed on a two‐dimensional, frontal view, facial image, without any three‐dimensional reference and/or the possibility to touch the subject's actual facial surface. As a result of this, the general reliability of FPA has been recently challenged by the scientific community . One significant aftermath, in particular, has been the recommendation from the Facial Identification Scientific Working Group (FISWG) to avoid using FPA‐based methodologies as proof of evidence in FFI .…”

“…scientific community (17)(18)(19)23). One significant aftermath, in particular, has been the recommendation from the Facial Identification Scientific Working Group (FISWG) to avoid using FPAbased methodologies as proof of evidence in FFI (21).…”

“…Even if it is acknowledged that the application of FPA‐based methodologies may be difficult and inadequate in a number of situations, such as those involving low resolution and/or non‐frontal facial images, in several others it is not and may actually be beneficial. This is the case, for example, in those situations where images are acquired under sufficiently standardized conditions, such as in the detection of identity document fraud or age estimation from portrait images . To guarantee highly reliable results, however, a high reproducibility in landmark location is still essential and improvements would therefore be necessary .…”

“…This is the case, for example, in those situations where images are acquired under sufficiently standardized conditions, such as in the detection of identity document fraud or age estimation from portrait images . To guarantee highly reliable results, however, a high reproducibility in landmark location is still essential and improvements would therefore be necessary . In particular, it is advised that the aforementioned reproducibility issues may be reduced through the use of proper landmark descriptions and/or locating procedures optimized for FPA applications, which thus take into account the specific problems encountered when positioning landmarks on two‐dimensional facial images.…”