The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face.
Aesthetic perception
Facial aging
Light
Standardized photography
Journal
Aesthetic plastic surgery
ISSN: 1432-5241
Titre abrégé: Aesthetic Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7701756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
08
03
2021
accepted:
08
04
2021
pubmed:
15
5
2021
medline:
8
1
2022
entrez:
14
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
2D baseline and follow-up clinical images are potentially subject to inconsistency due to alteration of imaging parameters. However, no study to date has attempted to quantify the magnitude by which such images can be influenced. The objective of the present study is to identify the magnitude by which images can be influenced by changing the imaging light angle. This study is based on the evaluation of 2D frontal images of the face and included a total of 51 subjects of which n = 14 were males and n = 37 were females. Faces were photographed at 0°, 30°, and 60° light angle under identical and standardized conditions. Images were randomized and rated by 27 blinded raters for age, facial attractiveness, body mass index (BMI), temporal hollowing, lower cheek fullness, nasolabial sulcus severity, and jawline contour. Facial attractiveness decreased, facial unattractiveness increased and the evaluated BMI (based on facial assessment) increased statistically significantly at 60°. The assessment of regional facial scores, i.e., temporal hollowing, lower cheek fullness, and jawline contour, showed no statistically meaningful changes both at 30° and at 60° light angle. The results indicate that there might be an observed blind range in light angle (0°-30°) which does not influence facial assessment. Increasing the light angle past the threshold value to 60° might result in a statistically significant impact on facial perception which should be accounted for when documenting and/or presenting facial 2D images. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
2D baseline and follow-up clinical images are potentially subject to inconsistency due to alteration of imaging parameters. However, no study to date has attempted to quantify the magnitude by which such images can be influenced.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the present study is to identify the magnitude by which images can be influenced by changing the imaging light angle.
METHODS
This study is based on the evaluation of 2D frontal images of the face and included a total of 51 subjects of which n = 14 were males and n = 37 were females. Faces were photographed at 0°, 30°, and 60° light angle under identical and standardized conditions. Images were randomized and rated by 27 blinded raters for age, facial attractiveness, body mass index (BMI), temporal hollowing, lower cheek fullness, nasolabial sulcus severity, and jawline contour.
RESULTS
Facial attractiveness decreased, facial unattractiveness increased and the evaluated BMI (based on facial assessment) increased statistically significantly at 60°. The assessment of regional facial scores, i.e., temporal hollowing, lower cheek fullness, and jawline contour, showed no statistically meaningful changes both at 30° and at 60° light angle.
CONCLUSION
The results indicate that there might be an observed blind range in light angle (0°-30°) which does not influence facial assessment. Increasing the light angle past the threshold value to 60° might result in a statistically significant impact on facial perception which should be accounted for when documenting and/or presenting facial 2D images.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 33987696
doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02314-3
pii: 10.1007/s00266-021-02314-3
pmc: PMC8677634
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2751-2759Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Jun 14;41(7):805-813
pubmed: 32593170
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006 Mar;34(2):65-73
pubmed: 16427297
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jun;141(6):1351-1359
pubmed: 29750762
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Aug;19(8):2025-2032
pubmed: 31860159
Facial Plast Surg. 1999;15(2):93-9
pubmed: 11816129
Iperception. 2017 Nov 29;8(6):2041669517744221
pubmed: 29225768
J Vis. 2017 Jul 1;17(8):2
pubmed: 28672368
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007 Mar-Apr;31(2):194-200
pubmed: 17205256
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Oct;108(5):1334-44
pubmed: 11604641
Dermatol Surg. 2019 Aug;45 Suppl 1:S2-S11
pubmed: 31246867
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Aug;102(2):559-68
pubmed: 9703100