The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지

What Do We See When We Look at Faces?

우리는 얼굴을 어떻게 평가하는가?

  • Evans, Carla A. (Department of Orthodontics University of Illinois at Chicago)
  • Published : 2003.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recent scientific findings on the perception of facial attractiveness coupled with technological advances in computer imaging make it possible to measure the facial characteristics that nay be associated with specific judgments of facial appearance. These new methods can be used to produce psychometric norms of facial attractiveness which potentially could supplement the conventional population norms or averages used currently in orthodontic treatment planning. It is hypothesized that consideration of psychometric norms will enhance doctor-patient communication and lead to greater patient satisfaction at the completion of orthodontic treatment.

Keywords

References

  1. Goldstein RE. Esthetic dentistry-a health service? J Dent Res 1993 : 72 : 641-2
  2. Johnson VS, Solomon CJ, Gibson SJ, Pallares-Beiarano A. Human facial beauty : current theories and methodologies. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003: 5 : 371-7
  3. Giddon DB. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Seminars in Orthod 1995 : 1 : 82-93
  4. Barinaga M. Visual system provides clues to how the brain perceives. Science 1997 : 275 : 1583-5
  5. Alley TR. Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey, 1988
  6. Mejia-Maidl M, Evans C. Soft tissue facial considerations and orthodontic treatment. Sem Orthod 6 : 3-20, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(00)80005-5
  7. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Sci 1990 : 1 : 115 -20
  8. Alley TR, Cunningham MR. Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average. Psychological Sci 1991 : 2 : 123-5
  9. Perret DI, May K, Yoshikawa S. Attractive characteristics of female faces: preference for non-average shape. Nature, Lond. 1994: 38 : 239-42
  10. Moss JP, Linney AD, Lowey MN. The use of three-dimensional techniques in facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995: 1 : 94-104.11
  11. Jones D, Hill K. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature 1993 : 4 : 271-96
  12. Treutwein B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res 1995 : 35 : 2503-22
  13. Atkinson RC, et al., editors. Psychophysics. In: Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 39-74, 1988
  14. Giddon DB, Bernier DL, Kinchen JA, Evans CA. Comparison between two computer-animated imaging programs for quantifying facial profile preference. Percept Mot Skills 1996 : 82 : 1251-64
  15. Giddon DB, Sconzo R, Kinchen JA, Evans CA Quantitative comparison of computerized discrete and animated profile preferences Angle Orthod 1996 : 66 : 441-8
  16. Giddon DB, Evans CA, Raines CE, Clemens IK. Influence of magnitude of horizontal and vertical deformation on preference for morphed faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1997 : 85 : 1303-13
  17. Kitay D, BeGole EA, Evans CA, Giddon DB. Computer-animated comparison of self perception with actual profiles of orthodontic and nonorthodontic subjects, Int. J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1999 : 14 : 125-134
  18. Arpino VJ, Giddon DB, BeGole EA, Evans CA. Presurgical profile preferences of patients and clinicians. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998 : 114: 631-7
  19. Hier LA, Evans CA, BeGole EA, Giddon DB. Comparison of preferences in lip position using computer animated imaging. Angle Orthod 1999 : 69 : 231-8
  20. Anderson NK, Evans CA, Giddon DB. Comparisons of perceptions of computer-animated left- and right-facing profiles. J Prosthodontics 1999 : 8 : 72-9