Cargando…
The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face
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 identi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8677634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33987696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02314-3 |
_version_ | 1784616179238699008 |
---|---|
author | Hernandez, Claudia A. Espinal, John Mario Zapata, David Uribe Coimbra, Daniel Alfertshofer, Michael Frank, Konstantin Green, Jeremy B Davidovic, Kristina Gavril, Diana L. Cotofana, Sebastian |
author_facet | Hernandez, Claudia A. Espinal, John Mario Zapata, David Uribe Coimbra, Daniel Alfertshofer, Michael Frank, Konstantin Green, Jeremy B Davidovic, Kristina Gavril, Diana L. Cotofana, Sebastian |
author_sort | Hernandez, Claudia A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8677634 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86776342022-01-04 The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face Hernandez, Claudia A. Espinal, John Mario Zapata, David Uribe Coimbra, Daniel Alfertshofer, Michael Frank, Konstantin Green, Jeremy B Davidovic, Kristina Gavril, Diana L. Cotofana, Sebastian Aesthetic Plast Surg Original Article 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. Springer US 2021-05-13 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8677634/ /pubmed/33987696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02314-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Hernandez, Claudia A. Espinal, John Mario Zapata, David Uribe Coimbra, Daniel Alfertshofer, Michael Frank, Konstantin Green, Jeremy B Davidovic, Kristina Gavril, Diana L. Cotofana, Sebastian The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face |
title | The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face |
title_full | The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face |
title_fullStr | The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face |
title_full_unstemmed | The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face |
title_short | The Influence of Different Light Angles During Standardized Patient Photographic Assessment on the Aesthetic Perception of the Face |
title_sort | influence of different light angles during standardized patient photographic assessment on the aesthetic perception of the face |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8677634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33987696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02314-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hernandezclaudiaa theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT espinaljohnmario theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT zapatadaviduribe theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT coimbradaniel theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT alfertshofermichael theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT frankkonstantin theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT greenjeremyb theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT davidovickristina theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT gavrildianal theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT cotofanasebastian theinfluenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT hernandezclaudiaa influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT espinaljohnmario influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT zapatadaviduribe influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT coimbradaniel influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT alfertshofermichael influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT frankkonstantin influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT greenjeremyb influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT davidovickristina influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT gavrildianal influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface AT cotofanasebastian influenceofdifferentlightanglesduringstandardizedpatientphotographicassessmentontheaestheticperceptionoftheface |