On the integral use of foundational concepts in verifying validity during skull-photo superimposition

- Use of 'life-size' images alone enables quantitation during superimposition.
- Dynamic skull orientation requires use of frontal and rear plane landmarks.
- Integration of wipe images enables point-to-point match against mix images.
- Reduced accuracies during superimposition as due to transitions in concepts.
- Integration of verification steps ensures validity in superimposition test.

Often cited reliability test on video superimposition method integrated scaling face-images in relation to skull-images, tragus-auditory meatus relationship in addition to exocanthion-Whitnall's tubercle relationship when orientating the skull-image and wipe mode imaging in addition to mix mode imaging when obtaining skull-face image overlay and evaluating the goodness of match. However, a report that found higher false positive matches in computer assisted superimposition method transited from the above foundational concepts and relied on images of unspecified sizes that are lesser than 'life-size', frontal plane landmarks in the skull- and face- images alone for orientating the skull-image and mix images alone for evaluating the goodness of match. Recently, arguing the use of 'life-size' images as 'archaic', the authors who tested the reliability in the computer assisted superimposition method have denied any method transition. This article describes that the use of images of unspecified sizes at lesser than 'life-size' eliminates the only possibility to quantify parameters during superimposition which alone enables dynamic skull orientation when overlaying a skull-image with a face-image in an anatomically acceptable orientation. The dynamic skull orientation process mandatorily requires aligning the tragus in the 2D face-image with the auditory meatus in the 3D skull-image for anatomically orientating the skull-image in relation to the posture in the face-image, a step not mentioned by the authors describing the computer assisted superimposition method. Furthermore, mere reliance on mix type images during image overlay eliminates the possibility to assess the relationship between the leading edges of the skull- and face-image outlines as also specific area match among the corresponding craniofacial organs during superimposition. Indicating the possibility of increased false positive matches as a consequence of the above method transitions, the need for testing the reliability in the superimposition method adopting concepts that are considered safe is stressed.