Inter-observer variation of head and foot point selection for subject height determination.
camera matching
forensic video analysis
height estimation
photogrammetry
reverse projection
subject height analysis
suspect height analysis
video evidence
video surveillance
Journal
Journal of forensic sciences
ISSN: 1556-4029
Titre abrégé: J Forensic Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375370
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Apr 2024
23 Apr 2024
Historique:
revised:
09
04
2024
received:
24
11
2023
accepted:
11
04
2024
medline:
23
4
2024
pubmed:
23
4
2024
entrez:
23
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to examine factors affecting video analysts' decisions in marking the vertex of the head and foot point and corresponding inter-observer marking variances when conducting height analysis on individuals seen in video. Nineteen video analysts participated in an exercise at the 2022 Ontario Forensic Video Analysts' Association (OFVAA) conference where they were asked to mark the vertex of the head and a corresponding foot point of a "suspect" on extracted video frames in a variety of positions and with different headwear (no headwear, baseball cap, and hoodie). A height scale with discrete marking points located at the same positions as where the suspect was positioned was also included in a separate image set, offering a comparison to the suspect. Marked points for all analysts were overlayed onto the respective image frame for visual observations. Summary statistics were used for data interpretation. This study demonstrated that factors such as the suspect's proximity to the camera and suspect's headwear affected the variability and range of marking, which has a direct correlation to the estimated height of the suspect. In general, when the region to be marked was larger, the variability was also larger. This study also demonstrates that marking errors were significantly reduced when discrete marking locations were present such as on a height scale. The average percentage difference of height was most notable, approximately 3%, when the suspect was wearing a hoodie and was at a position closest to the camera. The range of the percentage difference was also the highest at this position, which was 10.6%. In comparison, the height scale had a maximum percent height difference of 0.6% at position D-5, the furthest position from the camera. The range at this location was approximately 2%, which was also the highest range value for the height scale. Future studies should consider suspect posture and look at how these errors may be minimized by examining the best locations to mark the head and foot points under different scenarios.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38651644
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15529
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Références
Liscio E, Guryn H, Le Q, Olver A. A comparison of reverse projection and PhotoModeler for suspect height analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;320:110690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110690
Johnson M, Liscio E. Suspect height estimation using the FARO Focus 3D Laser Scanner. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60(6):1582–1588. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.12829
Edelman G, Alberink I, Hoogeboom B. Comparison of the performance of two methods for height estimation. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(2):358–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2009.01296.x
Puky PD. The physiological oscillation of the length of the body. Acta Orthop Scand. 1935;6(1–4):338–347. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453673508991358