Facial plastic surgery & aesthetic medicine · 2026
Ear Size and Position Variations Rated by Casual Observers on Artificial Intelligence-Generated Models.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kokesh Kai C, Sie Kathleen, Bly Randall, Bhrany Amit, Modi Rishi, Wang Xing, Nyman Annique, Lu G Nina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Auricular asymmetry affects facial aesthetics; yet, the degree of asymmetry discernible by a casual observer remains poorly defined.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the casual observer's perception of auricular size, angulation, protrusion, and vertical position.
METHODS: Artificial intelligence-generated facial images were utilized and unilateral variations created in (1) size, (2) angulation, (3) protrusion, and (4) vertical position. A total of 200 responders reviewed 46 images, rating the ear appearance on a Likert scale of 0-10.
RESULTS: Causal observers rated a ≥10% change in size significantly different than baseline (p < 0.001). Retrograde angulation ≥10° and anterograde angulation at 20° were rated significantly different than baseline (p < 0.001). Positive asymmetrical protrusion was rated more severely than negative asymmetrical protrusion. The vertical position difference was rated least critically on average compared with baseline.
CONCLUSION: Casual observers more critically perceived auricular size asymmetry and retrograde angulation when compared with protrusion and vertical position asymmetry.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the casual observer's perception of auricular size, angulation, protrusion, and vertical position.
METHODS: Artificial intelligence-generated facial images were utilized and unilateral variations created in (1) size, (2) angulation, (3) protrusion, and (4) vertical position. A total of 200 responders reviewed 46 images, rating the ear appearance on a Likert scale of 0-10.
RESULTS: Causal observers rated a ≥10% change in size significantly different than baseline (p < 0.001). Retrograde angulation ≥10° and anterograde angulation at 20° were rated significantly different than baseline (p < 0.001). Positive asymmetrical protrusion was rated more severely than negative asymmetrical protrusion. The vertical position difference was rated least critically on average compared with baseline.
CONCLUSION: Casual observers more critically perceived auricular size asymmetry and retrograde angulation when compared with protrusion and vertical position asymmetry.