English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The traditional morphometrics approach to shape comparisons involves computing multiple interlandmark distances without taking into account the geometric configuration of the landmarks. A recent example of this approach is a study by Potter and Corneille (2008). They had participants rate the attractiveness of computer-generated European, African, and Asian male faces, and they computed the Euclidean distances between each face and the group prototypes. They found that faces are rated more attractive when they are closer to their group prototype. This letter addresses differing conclusions in the literature, the methodological shortcomings of Potter and Corneille, and another study that explored a similar topic, with a special focus on guiding future researchers around the pitfalls of traditional morphometrics.

Limitations of traditional morphometrics in research on the attractiveness of faces