The Validity of Ear Prediction Guidelines Used in Facial Approximation*,†,‡ |
| |
| Authors: | Pierre Guyomarc’h PhD Carl N Stephan PhD |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Université Bordeaux 1, UMR 5199 – PACEA, Anthropologie des Populations Passées et Présentes (A3P), Avenue des Facultés, Batiment B8, 33405 Talence Cedex, France.;2. Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, Central Identification Laboratory, 310 Worchester Avenue, Building 45, Hickam Air Force Base, HI 96853.;3. Anatomy and Developmental Biology, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072 Qld, Australia. |
| |
| Abstract: | Abstract: This study examined eight previously published ear prediction methods by Welcker, Gerasimov, Fedosyutkin and Nainys, and Broadbent and Mathews. Computed tomography scans of 78 living adults (n1) did not support any of these previously published recommendations. Free earlobes were found to accompany protruding supramastoid crests (Pearson’s χ² < 0.05); and ear length l] and width w] differed by sex (p < 0.05), correlated with age (r = 0.38l]; 0.32w]), and correlated with facial height (r = 0.37l]; 0.30w]). New regression equations (for ear length and width) were generated using these variables in several samples and, where possible, cross‐validated using independent data (n1 = 78, n2 = 2190, n3 = 1328, n4 = 1010, and n5 = 47). As a result of these analyses, four valid and tested methods for ear prediction were identified, but large degrees of error continue to make accurate prediction of the ear, from the skull, problematic. |
| |
| Keywords: | forensic science facial reconstruction facial reproduction external ear pinna skull |
|
|
