4.4 Article

Anthropometric analysis of 3D ear scans of Koreans and Caucasians for ear product design

Journal

ERGONOMICS
Volume 61, Issue 11, Pages 1480-1495

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2018.1493150

Keywords

Ear measurement; 3D anthropometric analysis; Korean ear; Caucasian ear; ear product design

Funding

  1. Samsung Electronics
  2. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea - Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (MSIP) [NRF-2017M3C1B6070526, NRF-2018R1C1B5047805, NRF-2018R1A2A2A05023299]
  3. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy [10063384, R0004840]
  4. Biomedical Research Institute Fund, Chonbuk National University Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study measured 25 dimensions of the ear including the concha and ear canal for ergonomic design of ear products and compared with existing ear measurement studies. Scanning and casting methods were employed to produce 3D ear images for 230 Koreans and 96 Caucasians and measurements of the ear dimensions were obtained by identifying 21 landmarks on individual ear scan image. The Korean ear measurements were found significantly larger (mean difference = 0.4-3.7 mm) and more varied (ratio of SDs =1.01-1.55) than those of Caucasians in most of ear dimensions. The average ear length and ear breadth of male were significantly longer ( = 1.3-7.0 mm) and wider ( = 0.8-3.0 mm) than those of female. Use of gender- and ethnicity-composite ear data is recommended in product design due to the much larger intra-population variations (7.5-22.2 mm) than the corresponding inter-population variations. Practitioner Summary: The 3D ear measurements of Koreans and Caucasians were collected and compared with those of different ethnic populations. The distinct ear features of the populations identified in this study are applicable to ergonomic design of ear products with better fit and comfort.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available