4.6 Article

Assessment of accuracy and recognition of three-dimensional computerized forensic craniofacial reconstruction

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196770

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Facial reconstruction is a technique that aims to reproduce the individual facial characteristics based on interpretation of the skull, with the objective of recognition leading to identification. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the accuracy and recognition level of three-dimensional (3D) computerized forensic craniofacial reconstruction (CCFR) performed in a blind test on open-source software using computed tomography (CT) data from live subjects. Four CCFRs were produced by one of the researchers, who was provided with information concerning the age, sex, and ethnic group of each subject. The CCFRs were produced using Blender (R) with 3D models obtained from the CT data and templates from the MakeHuman (R) program. The evaluation of accuracy was carried out in CloudCompare, by geometric comparison of the CCFR to the subject 3D face model (obtained from the CT data). A recognition level was performed using the Picasa (R) recognition tool with a frontal standardized photography, images of the subject CT face model and the CCFR. Soft-tissue depth and nose, ears and mouth were based on published data, observing Brazilian facial parameters. The results were presented from all the points that form the CCFR model, with an average for each comparison between 63% and 74% with a distance -2.5 <= x <= 2.5 mm from the skin surface. The average distances were 1.66 to 0.33 mm and greater distances were observed around the eyes, cheeks, mental and zygomatic regions. Two of the four CCFRs were correctly matched by the Picasa (R) tool. Free software programs are capable of producing 3D CCFRs with plausible levels of accuracy and recognition and therefore indicate their value for use in forensic applications.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available