Application of Digimizer Image Analysis Software In Facial Anthropometry

Salvarzi, Elham; Choobineh, Alireza; Jahangiri, Mehdi; Keshavarzi, Sareh

doi:10.30699/jergon.8.2.61

Write your message

ارسال به ایمیل

Volume 8, Issue 2 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020) Iran J Ergon 2020, 8(2): 61-71 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.30699/jergon.8.2.61

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Salvarzi E, Choobineh A, Jahangiri M, Keshavarzi S. Application of Digimizer Image Analysis Software In Facial Anthropometry. Iran J Ergon 2020; 8 (2) :61-71
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-724-en.html

Application of Digimizer Image Analysis Software In Facial Anthropometry

Elham Salvarzi¹

, Alireza Choobineh ^*

², Mehdi Jahangiri³

, Sareh Keshavarzi⁴

1- M.Sc ergonomics, Student Research Committee, Ergonomics Department, School Of Health, Shiraz University Of Medical Sciences,Shiraz, Iran
2- Professor, Research Center For Health Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran , alrchoobin@sums.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor, Occupational Health Engineering Department, School Of Health, Shiraz University Of Medical Sciences,Shiraz, Iran
4- Assistant Professor, Epidemiology Department, School Of Health, Shiraz University Of Medical Sciences,Shiraz, Iran

Keywords: Ergonomics, Anthropometry, Face, Photoanthropometry, Digimizer

Full-Text [PDF 429 kb] (13120 Downloads) | Abstract (HTML) (8576 Views)

This study showed that the use of Digimizer software can replace the use of manual method in measuring the dimensions of the face and in the preparation of anthropometric database of the face in less time is preferable to the manual method.

Extended Abstract: (2211 Views)

Introduction

A nthropometry is one of the components of ergonomics that helps to achieve physical and dimensional compatibility between user and product [7]. Dimensional proportionality is known by anthropometric analysis [3]. Anthropometric data are a vital part of the ergonomic design process of equipment, space and work environment. Using anthropometric information, designers can design considering the needs and dimensional characteristics of the target group [8]. In industrialized and developed countries, anthropometric information is available as standard tables. Therefore, manufacturers use available data to design products based on the characteristics of the target community [10, 9]. If such tables are available in Iran, the country's domestic products will be produced based on the dimensional standards of Iranians, which can lead to solving the part of the current problems in terms of dimensional mismatch between the product and the user.
One of the important components of anthropometry is craniometry, which measures the anatomical dimensions of the head and face (craniofacial features) in living humans [11, 12]. Anthropometry and the study of anthropometric ratios of the head and face are used in sciences such as dentistry, medicine, maxillofacial surgery, growth studies, plastic surgery, bioengineering and non-medical disciplines, including the construction of personal protective equipment for the head and face [13]. The existence of databases of head and face dimensions to design devices and equipment that are used in this area of the body is one of the first and most necessary steps in the design of this type of product. Also, the first step in evaluating any patient who refers for reconstructive and cosmetic surgery of the head and face is the analysis of components of the head and face [14] to compare with normal criteria and plan treatment based on it. Therefore, knowing the size of a fit face in any society is one of the most essential principles for plastic surgeons in that society [15].
The methods used in anthropometric studies can be divided into three groups: 1- manual anthropometry, 2- two-dimensional photography, and 3- three-dimensional photography [12].
Manual (direct) anthropometry is a direct, easy, and inexpensive measurement method that uses traditional measuring instruments such as flexible measuring tapes, calipers, measuring plates, and rulers to obtain a 1D anthropometric database or a variable for distances and environments. There are limitations to using manual anthropometry; including sufficient skills of the person measuring the dimensions [20]. There is also a possibility of error when measuring due to pressure on the soft tissue with the measuring tool [22, 21]. The measurement process is tedious and time consuming due to multiple and direct measurements. Maintaining the standard status during multiple measurement sessions and intra-observer and inter-observer errors are other limitations of the direct method of measuring anthropometric dimensions [16].
An alternative to manual anthropometry is two-dimensional photography, in which the position of the head is in a certain direction relative to the horizontal plane of Frankfurt. In this method, the dimensions are obtained from the taken images compared to the manual method that is extracted directly from the sample [17-19].
Three-dimensional anthropometry is the newest and most advanced method of measuring facial dimensions and has been used for more than two decades. In this method, the three-dimensional position of landmarks on the body is recorded by electromechanical and electromagnetic probes. With the advancement of technology, the dimensions of the human body can be measured indirectly by the three-dimensional method. The 3D scanning method has been developed using advanced optoelectronic technologies. The 3D scanner system includes a light source, sensors and a controller [16].
Today, instead of the manual method of measuring dimensions, two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurement methods are used. The use of 2D software to measure dimensions, in addition to saving time, makes it possible to prepare an archive of photos for further research. The purpose of this study is to introduce Digimizer software as one of the two-dimensional softwares for analyzing images and comparing the measurement of face dimensions with this software and manual method.

Materials and Methods

This descriptive-analytical study was performed to compare the correlation between manual dimensional measurement and photoanthropometry and the introduction of Digimizer software. The sample size was calculated based on the correlation coefficient obtained in the study of Habibi et al. [23], which was 0.71-0.95, 12 people according to Formula 1.

Formula 1:

The inclusion criteria were: 1- Satisfaction of the individual to participate in the study, 2- Female students aged 20-35, 3- No significant changes in the oral area, 4- Absence of growths such as pimples and scars on the face 5 - No history of facial surgeries such as rhinoplasty. In this study, anthropometric dimensions of the face were selected based on the study of Han et al., which is required for the design of a half-face mask (Figure 1).
In this study 12 female students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences participated. Their face dimensions were measured by photographic and manual methods. The data analysis was performed by SPSS 19 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill., USA) and significance level was performed at α = 0.05, and descriptive-analytical statistical tests.

A: Distance between two cheeks (face width)
B: Distance between two mandibular angles (mandible) C: Nose to chin distance (face length) D: Distance between chin to septum (short part of face)
E: Distance between nasal root and septum (length of nose)
F: Nasal width
G: Lip length
H: The appendix of the ear (tragus) to the septum
I: The arch of the appendix (tragus) to the chin
J: The length of the nasal ridge

Figure 1. Dimensions measured in the study [26]

Figure 2. Measuring the desired dimensions in Digimizer software

Results

The Results showed that in Subnasal-Nasal Root Length (SNRL), Menton-Nasal Root Length (MNRL) (Face Length) and Bitragion-Menton Arc (TRMA) dimensions, there was significant difference between the two methods (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the other dimensions measured. Between the two methods, ICC (Intra Class Correlation) coefficients were found to range from 0.56 – 0.94.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the subjects (n = 12)

Variable	M	SD	Min	Max
Age (year)	28.8	2.51	25	30
Weight (kg)	57.00	11.04	43.00	75.00
Height (cm)	160.66	6.61	155	172

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of each of the dimensions measured by both manual and photographic methods (n = 12)

P ^*	M±SD	Anthropometric method	Measured dimensions	Row
0.476	0.80±10.52¬	Manual	Protrusion distance of two species (face width) A	1
	0.74±10.45	Photography
0.754	0.93±9.34	Manual	Distance between two mandibular angles (mandible) B	2
	0.83±9.332	Photography
0.028^†	1.29±11.31	Manual	Nose to chin distance (face length) C	3
	1.16±11.80	Photography
0.182	0.59±6.31	Manual	Distance from chin to septum (short part of face) D	4
	0.81±6.65	Photography
0.015^†	1.15±5.04	Manual	Distance from nasal root to septum (length of nose) E	5
	0.92±5.46	Photography
0.059	0.62±2.76	Manual	Nasal width F	6
	0.74±3.03	Photography
0.347	0.72±3.76	Manual	Lip width G	7
	0.33±3.81	Photography
0.230	0.63±13.11	Manual	The appendix of the ear (tragus) to the septum H	8
	0.92±13.34	Photography
0.012^†	0.92±14.35	Manual	The arch of the appendix (tragus) to the chin I	9
	1.91±14.78	Photography
0.209	0.21±2.54	Manual	The length of the nasal ridge J	10
	0.20±2.62	Photography

* Wilcoxon nonparametric significance test
† Significant at the level of 0.05 α
¬ Dimensions in centimeters

Table 3. ICC coefficient in evaluating the accuracy of measuring the dimensions of the face by manual and photographic methods

P	ICC		Measured dimensions	Row
0.0001>		0.941	Protrusion distance of two species (face width) A	1
0.0001>		0.895	Distance between two mandibular angles (mandible) B	2
0.001		0.766	Nose to chin distance (face length) C	3
0.019		0.562	Distance from chin to septum (short part of face) D	4
0.003		0.688	Distance from nasal root to septum (length of nose) E	5
0.001		0.779	Nasal width F	6
0.015		0.585	Lip width G	7
0.001		0.613	The appendix of the ear (tragus) to the septum H	8
0.0001>		0.826	The arch of the appendix (tragus) to the chin I	9
0.014		0.592	The length of the nasal ridge J	10

Discussion

Today, most anthropometric studies are performed by the technique of photographing and analyzing images with two-dimensional and three-dimensional computer softwares. Numerous studies have been performed on the validity of the photoanthropometric method and three-dimensional scanning in comparison with the traditional method of measuring dimensions [27]; one of the studies conducted by Mahmoudi et al. evaluated the validity of the photoanthropometric method for the quantitative description of facial structures. In this study, 19 variables including longitudinal and angular measurements on profile and full-face photographs of 100 healthy Tehran children aged 4 to 14 years were examined. The researchers concluded that the photoanthropometric method can determine the normal (abnormal) and abnormal (abnormal) dimensions of facial structures in certain human races as well as in the syndromes associated with facial abnormalities and can be used to diagnose, correct and treat abnormalities [27].
In the present study, it was found that in most of the measured dimensions, there is a high correlation coefficient between the two measurement methods. There was a significant difference in the dimensions of the distance from the root of the nose to the septum (length of the nose), the distance from the root of the nose to the chin (length of the face) and the arch of the appendage (tragus) to the chin (P<0.05) and no significant difference in other dimensions; in other words, the use of Digimizer software in measuring the dimensions of the face can be an alternative to using the manual method and has an acceptable accuracy. However, it seems that a more definite statement can be made at a higher sample size.
One of the advantages of using Digimizer software in measuring anthropometric dimensions is saving time in measurement. This can make more samples willing to participate in the study to prepare an anthropometric database.
To accurately measure the dimensions with the photographic method, it is necessary to provide the following conditions: placing the appropriate scale (standard scale) next to the sample, fixed distance from the sample to the camera, equal camera height for all samples, uniform brightness, background with appropriate color without disturbing shadows, providing good contrast with the person's face, and correcting the body position relative to the camera. Only then can the accuracy of the measurement be ensured.
Given the above, anthropometric dimensions measurement is proposed to more accurately determine the correlation between the two manual methods and photography for a higher number of samples. Also, comparisons can be made between different 2D software available with Digimizer as well as 3D methods. This software can be used to measure other dimensions of the body in ergonomic design, dentistry, plastic surgery studies, maxillofacial and other related fields.

Conclusion

The results showed that face dimensions measurement by Digimizer software produced reliable and valid results in most of measured dimensions and could be an appropriate alternative method for face anthropometry.

Acknowledgements

This article is taken from the dissertation of Ms. Elham Salvarzi, a bachelor's degree student in ergonomics at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. We would like to thank the participants in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Type of Study: Review | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2020/06/6 | Accepted: 2020/08/23 | ePublished: 2020/08/25

References

1. Pheasant S. Body space: Human, Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. Translator: Choobineh A, Mououdi Ma. 5nd ed. Tehran: Mad Publishers; 2013. [Google Scholar]

2. Mououdi M. Editor Anthropometry: Subjects, Applications and necessities. Proceedings of the national congress of anthropometry; 2010 May 13-15; Tehran, Iran. [Google Scholar]

3. Gnaneswaran V, Bishu Rr. Anthropometry and hand performance evaluation of minority population. Int J Ind Ergon. 2011; 41(6):661-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2011.07.003]

4. García-Cáceres RG, Felknor S, Córdoba JE, Caballero JP, Barrero LH. Hand anthropometry of the Colombian floriculture workers of the Bogota plateau. Int J Ind Ergon. 2012; 42(2):183-98. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2011.12.002]

5. Mosadegh RA. Relationship between nurses' knowledge about ergonomy and their job injuries. J Shahrekord Univ Med Sci. 2004; 6(3):21-32 [Article] [Google Scholar]

6. Vink P. Editor. Comfort and Design: Principles And Good Practice. Baco Raton: Crc Press; 2005. [DOI:10.1201/9781420038132]

7. Elshennawy AK, Lee CH, Hines MI. Ergonomic issues in quality control. Comput Ind Eng. 1 St Ed. Engng, 1989; 17(1):514-8. [DOI:10.1016/0360-8352(89)90115-0]

8. Tayyari F, Smith J. Occupational Ergonomics: Principles and Applications. Amsterdam: Springer; 1997. [Google Scholar]

9. Brodie P, Moscrip M, Hutcheon M. Body Composition Measurement: A review of hydrodensitometry, anthropometry, and impedance methods. Nutr. 1998; 14(3):296-310. [DOI:10.1016/S0899-9007(97)00474-7]

10. Santos J, Albala C, Lera L, Garcia C, Arroyo P, Pérez-Bravo F, et al. Anthropometric measurements in the elderly population of Santiago, Chile. Nutr. 2004; 20(5):452-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2004.01.010] [PMID]

11. Zviagin V, Bakholdina V. Informative value of craniometric data for ethno-racial studies. Sud Med Ekspert. 2008; 51(4):8-12. [Google Scholar]

12. Relethford J. Craniometric variation among modern human populations. Am. J Phys Anthropol. 1994; 95(1):53-62. [DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330950105] [PMID]

13. Esmaeilzadeh M. Assessment of facial and cranial development in Shirvanian Kurmanj population based on the mean biometric factors from birth to maturity age. J Iran Anat Sci. 2010; 8:49-58. [Article] [Google Scholar]

14. Porter J, Olson K. Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001; 3(3):191-7. [DOI:10.1001/archfaci.3.3.191] [PMID]

15. Farkas L, Katic M, Forrest C. Comparison of craniofacial measurements of young adult African-American and north American white males and females. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(6):692-8. [DOI:10.1097/01.sap.0000258954.55068.b4] [PMID]

16. Dianat I, Molenbroek J, Castellucci HI. A review of the methodology and applications of anthropometry in ergonomics and product design. Ergonomics. 2018; 61(12):1696-1720. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2018.1502817] [PMID]

17. Farkas, Leslie G. "Photogrammetry of the face anthropometry of the head and face." (1994). [Article]

18. Guyot L, Dubuc M, Richard O, Philip N, Dutour O. Comparison between direct clinical and digital photogrammetric measurements in patients with 22q11 microdeletion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 32(3):246-52. [DOI:10.1054/ijom.2002.0379] [PMID]

19. Allanson JE. Objective techniques for craniofacial assessment: what are the choices? Am J Med Genet. 1997; 70(1):1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19970502)70:1<1::AID-AJMG1>3.0.CO;2-3 [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19970502)70:13.0.CO;2-3]

20. Drillis R, Contini R, Bluestein M. Body segment parameters. Artif Limb. 1964; 8(1):44-66. [Article] [Google Scholar]

21. Ward R, Jamison P. Measurement precision and reliability in craniofacial anthropometry: implications and suggestions for clinical applications. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol Suppl. 1990; 11(3):156-64. [PMID] [Google Scholar]

22. Ras F, Habets L, Van Ginkel F, Prahl-Andersen B. Quantification of facial morphology using stereophotogrammetry- demonstration of a new concept. Int J Dent. 1996; 24(5):369-74. [DOI:10.1016/0300-5712(95)00081-X]

23. Habibi E, Soury S, Zadeh Ah. Precise evaluation of anthropometric 2d software processing of hand in comparison with direct method. J Med Signal Sens. 2013; 3(4):256-61. [DOI:10.4103/2228-7477.128338]

24. Diliberti JH, Olson DP. Photogrammetric evaluation in clinical genetics: theoretical considerations and experimental results. Am J Med Genet. 1991; 39(2):161-6. [DOI:10.1002/ajmg.1320390209] [PMID]

25. Han DH, Rhi J, Lee J. Development of prototypes of half-mask facepieces for Koreans using the 3D digitizing design method: a pilot study. Ann Occup Hyg. 2004; 48(8):707-14. [DOI]

26. Mahmoudi M. Validity of photoanthropometric method for clinical and objective description of facial structures. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci Health Serv. 2005; 33:65-72. [Article]

27. Monica P, Pedro M, Luıs G. Anthropometric study of Portuguese workers. Int J Ind Ergon 2005; 35(5):401-10. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.10.005]

28. Kim JH, Jung DJ, Kim HS, Kim CH, Kim TY. Analysis of the development of the nasal septum and measurement of the harvestable septal cartilage in Koreans using three-dimensional facial bone computed tomography scanning. Arch Plast Surg. 2014; 41(2):163-70. [DOI:10.5999/aps.2014.41.2.163] [PMID] [PMCID]

29. Joe PS, Ito Y, Shih AM, Oestenstad RK, Lungu CT. Comparison of a novel surface laser scanning anthropometric technique to traditional methods for facial parameter measurements. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(2):81-88. [DOI:10.1080/15459624.2011.640557] [PMID]

30. Ettorre G, Weber M, Schaaf H, Lowry JC, Mommaerts MY, Howaldt HP. Standards for digital photography in cranio-maxillo-facial surgery-Part I: Basic views and guidelines. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 34(2):65-73. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2005.11.002] [PMID]