0hMan
germano-gaelic gaunche - modcel
Staff
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2022
- Posts
- 4,178
- Reputation
- 9,238
Something that I believe, and have believed for quite a long time, is underrated in terms of discussion on here is overall ear aesthetics. I'll go more into detail about other parts later on, but for now I will speak of earlobes.
Mowlavi et al. (2003) conducted a notable study assessing this relationship in a sample of white North Americans. Their research focused on two key components of earlobe proportions: the cephalic component, measured as the intertragal notch-to-otobasion inferius distance (I-O distance), and the free-margin caudal component, measured as the otobasion inferius-to-subaurale distance (O-S distance).
The following diagrams address the proportions evaluated and how they were varied.
Male and female judges rated similarly. For both male and female sketches, the I-O distance was preferred at either 5, 10, or 15 mm rather than at 20 mm; and the O-S distance was rated as follows: 5 mm > 10 mm > 0 mm > 15 mm > 20 mm. Therefore, people are less particular about I-O distance than about O-S distance.
The following image shows the outline of Marquardt’s mask, something which has long been claimed to be the outline of the “ideal” human face.
The I-O and O-S distances cannot be assessed in Marquardt’s mask, but the ear lobe length in Marquardt’s mask is 34.2% of the ear length.
The authors used 14 combinations of I-O and O-S distances in their sketches for attractiveness judgments; they avoided sketches of the combination of high values of both these distances since these combinations would obviously look ridiculous. The following diagram shows the top 3 rated sketches by both male and female judges.
In conclusion, the study gives some valuable insights into ear aesthetics, giving more information to an underrated subject in terms of aesthetics and theoretical ideals with empirical evidence. Their findings suggest that moderate earlobe proportions are generally preferred, offering practical guidance for aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Understanding these preferences can help surgerycels achieve outcomes that are more aligned with what most people (male and female) find attractive, ultimately leading to an incredibly higher level of satisfaction with surgical results.
Mowlavi et al. (2003) conducted a notable study assessing this relationship in a sample of white North Americans. Their research focused on two key components of earlobe proportions: the cephalic component, measured as the intertragal notch-to-otobasion inferius distance (I-O distance), and the free-margin caudal component, measured as the otobasion inferius-to-subaurale distance (O-S distance).
Anatomical Landmarks and Proportions
To understand earlobe proportions, it is essential to identify the anatomical landmarks involved:- Intertragal notch (I)
- Otobasion inferius (O)
- Subaurale (S)
- I-O distance: The distance from the intertragal notch to the otobasion inferius.
- O-S distance: The distance from the otobasion inferius to the subaurale.
The following diagrams address the proportions evaluated and how they were varied.
Fig. 1. Anatomical landmarks of the intertragal notch (I), otobasion inferius (O), and subaurale (S). Earlobe proportions comprise of two components: the cephalic component (intertragal notch-to-otobasion inferius distance; I-O distance) and the free-margin caudal component (otobasion inferius-to-subaurale distance; O-S distance).
Fig. 2. Range of I-O distances assessed (5 to 20 mm). Evaluators were asked to rank, in order of most desired to least desired, ear shapes in life-size female and male sketched profiles in which the I-O distance was altered.
Fig. 3. Range of O-S distances assessed (0 to 20 mm). Evaluators were asked to rank, in order of most desired to least desired, ear shapes in life-size female and male sketched profiles in which the O-S distance was altered.
Male and female judges rated similarly. For both male and female sketches, the I-O distance was preferred at either 5, 10, or 15 mm rather than at 20 mm; and the O-S distance was rated as follows: 5 mm > 10 mm > 0 mm > 15 mm > 20 mm. Therefore, people are less particular about I-O distance than about O-S distance.
The following image shows the outline of Marquardt’s mask, something which has long been claimed to be the outline of the “ideal” human face.
Fig.4. Marquardt’s Phi mask.
The I-O and O-S distances cannot be assessed in Marquardt’s mask, but the ear lobe length in Marquardt’s mask is 34.2% of the ear length.
The authors used 14 combinations of I-O and O-S distances in their sketches for attractiveness judgments; they avoided sketches of the combination of high values of both these distances since these combinations would obviously look ridiculous. The following diagram shows the top 3 rated sketches by both male and female judges.
In the #1 and #2 choices in Fig. 5, the ear lobe is 23.4% of the ear length, clearly strikingly different from Marquardt’s mask. Once again it is shown that Marquardt’s mask isn’t close to what most people find attractive. In a sample of 100 predominantly white individuals, the ear length ranged from 56 to 81 mm (average = 65 mm) and ear lobe length ranged from 13 to 25 mm (average = 18 mm) (Source: McKinney, P., and Cunningham, B. L., Aesthetic facial surgery, Churchill Livingstone, New York, page 221 (2002)). In this sample, the ear lobe length was 23 to 34% (average = 28%) of ear length. Therefore, Marquardt’s mask has ear lobe proportions at the extreme of white populations.
Fig. 5. Top-rated female sketches; from left to right: #1, #2 and #3. #1 corresponds to I-O = 10 mm and O-S = 5 mm. #2 corresponds to I-O = 5 mm and O-S = 10 mm. #3 corresponds to I-O = 5 mm and O-S = 5 mm. The top three rankings for male sketches had the same proportions, respectively.
In conclusion, the study gives some valuable insights into ear aesthetics, giving more information to an underrated subject in terms of aesthetics and theoretical ideals with empirical evidence. Their findings suggest that moderate earlobe proportions are generally preferred, offering practical guidance for aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Understanding these preferences can help surgerycels achieve outcomes that are more aligned with what most people (male and female) find attractive, ultimately leading to an incredibly higher level of satisfaction with surgical results.
