Informed Consent In Facial Photograph Publishing: A Cross-sectional Pilot Study To Determine The Effectiveness Of Deidentification Methods.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-24 DOI:10.1177/15562646221075459
Frank G Preston, Yanda Meng, Yalin Zheng, James Hsuan, Kevin J Hamill, Austin G McCormick
{"title":"Informed Consent In Facial Photograph Publishing: A Cross-sectional Pilot Study To Determine The Effectiveness Of Deidentification Methods.","authors":"Frank G Preston,&nbsp;Yanda Meng,&nbsp;Yalin Zheng,&nbsp;James Hsuan,&nbsp;Kevin J Hamill,&nbsp;Austin G McCormick","doi":"10.1177/15562646221075459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study determined the effectiveness of three deidentification methods: use of a) a black box to obscure facial landmarks, b) a letterbox view to display restricted facial landmarks and c) a half letterbox view. Facial images of well-known celebrities were used to create a series of decreasingly deidentified images and displayed to participants in a structured interview session. 55.5% were recognised when all facial features were covered using a black box, leaving only the hair and neck exposed. The letterbox view proved more effective, reaching over 50% recognition only once the periorbital region, eyebrows, and forehead were visible. The half letterbox was the most effective, requiring the nose to be revealed before recognition reached over 50%, and should be the option of choice where appropriate. These findings provide valuable information for informed consent discussions, and we recommend consent to publish forms should stipulate the deidentification method that will be used.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9136482/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221075459","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study determined the effectiveness of three deidentification methods: use of a) a black box to obscure facial landmarks, b) a letterbox view to display restricted facial landmarks and c) a half letterbox view. Facial images of well-known celebrities were used to create a series of decreasingly deidentified images and displayed to participants in a structured interview session. 55.5% were recognised when all facial features were covered using a black box, leaving only the hair and neck exposed. The letterbox view proved more effective, reaching over 50% recognition only once the periorbital region, eyebrows, and forehead were visible. The half letterbox was the most effective, requiring the nose to be revealed before recognition reached over 50%, and should be the option of choice where appropriate. These findings provide valuable information for informed consent discussions, and we recommend consent to publish forms should stipulate the deidentification method that will be used.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
面部照片出版中的知情同意:一项确定去识别方法有效性的横断面试点研究。
本研究确定了三种去识别方法的有效性:使用a)黑盒子来模糊面部地标,b)信箱视图来显示受限的面部地标,c)半信箱视图。知名名人的面部图像被用来创建一系列逐渐去识别的图像,并在一个结构化的采访环节中展示给参与者。55.5%的人在用黑盒子遮住所有面部特征,只露出头发和脖子时被识别出来。事实证明,信箱视图更有效,只有在眶周区域、眉毛和前额可见时,识别率才超过50%。半信箱是最有效的,在识别率超过50%之前需要露出鼻子,在适当的情况下应该是选择的选项。这些发现为知情同意讨论提供了有价值的信息,我们建议同意发布表格应规定将使用的去识别方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017. How Making Consent Procedures More Interactive can Improve Informed Consent: An Experimental Study and Replication. An Example of a Clinical Research Ethics Committee in Türkiye: Types of Studies Analysed, Their Phases and Investigators. Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members: Comment. Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1