COMPARISON OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR PERCEPTION OF FACIAL SYMMETRY

Abstract

Objectives: Symmetrical patterns of the face are generally preferred by the viewers. However, the process of perception of symmetry is far from perfect and is affected by subjective factors. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the differences between objective and subjective assessments for perception of facial asymmetry.
Methods: For objective evaluation, the anteroposterior photographs of 450 volunteers were analyzed anthropometrically for symmetry. Subjective evaluations were conducted by seven individuals who assessed each face based solely on symmetry.
Results: We found a difference between objective measurements and subjective evaluations. No statistically significant difference concerning the rates derived from anthropometric points was found between sexes. After the comparison of these rates, no subject was found to have a perfectly symmetrical face, and all subjects showed some asymmetry in one or more of their anthropometric points.
Conclusion: With subjective evaluation, asymmetry was found most commonly in the middle third of the face. Nose and alar margins may be the determining points for the observer during subjective evaluation, thus we think the best region to infer asymmetry from is the middle third of the face. Because of this, thousands of patients complain of asymmetrical noses and undergo
rhinoplastic surgery every year. This study also demonstrates individual differences in subjective evaluations. These differences and lack of objectively symmetrical faces for every set of points are very important for patients requesting plastic surgery procedures asuch as rhinoplasty out of aesthetic concerns.

Keywords

• facial asymmetry
• objective assessment
• subjective assessment

References

1. Coetzee V, Greeff JM, Stephen ID, Perrett DI. Cross-cultural
2. agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: the role of egender.
3. PLoS One 2014;9:e99629.
4. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human facial beauty: averageness,
5. symmetry, and parasite resistance. Hum Nat 1993;4:237-69.
6. Chatrath P, De Cordova J, Nouraei SA, Ahmed J, Saleh HA.
7. Objective assessment of facial asymmetry in rhinoplasty patients.
8. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007;9:184-7.

9. Sim RS, Smith JD, Chan AS. Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast
10. Surg 2000;2:113-20.
11. Varlik SK, Demirbas E, Orhan M. Influence of lower facial height
12. changes on frontal facial attractiveness and perception of treatment
13. need by lay people. Angle Orthod 2010;80:1159-64.
14. Le TT, Farkas LG, Ngim RC, Levin LS, Forrest CR.
15. Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using
16. neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002;26:64-9.
17. Farkas LG, Cheung G. Facial asymmetry in healthy North American
18. Caucasians. An anthropometrical study. Angle Orthod 1981;51:70-7.
19. Porter JP, Olson KL. Anthropometric facial analysis of the African
20. American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001;3:191-7.
21. Shaner DJ, Peterson AE, Beattie OB, Bamforth JS. Assessment of
22. soft tissue facial asymmetry in medically normal and syndromeaffected
23. individuals by analysis of landmarks and measurements. Am J Med Genet 2000;93:143-54.
24. Murstein BI. Physical attractiveness and marital choice. J Pers Soc
25. Psychol 1972; 22:8-12.
26. Zaidel DW, Cohen JA. The face, beauty, and symmetry: perceiving asymmetry in beautiful faces. Int J Neurosci 2005;115:1165-73.