Eurasian Journal of Anthropology Eurasian J. Anthropol.

2(2):96−101, 2011

Analysis of facial directional asymmetry in extreme

handed young males and females

Barış Özener1 Can Pelin2 Ayla Kürkçüoğlu2 Berna Ertuğrul1 and Ragıba Zağyapan2
1
Department of Anthropology, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
2
Department of Anatomy, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey

Received March 20, 2011

Accepted October 21, 2011

Abstract
In this study the relationship between facial directional asymmetry and extreme handedness
was investigated in 72 (35 left-handed and 37 right-handed) Turkish males and 76 (39 left-
handed and 37 right-handed) females, a total of 148 university students. Asymmetry was
determined on the digital photographs of the participants, taken from the front. Handedness
was assessed via the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Subjects with scores of +100 were
designated as extreme right-handers, and participants with scores of -100 were designed as
extreme left-handers. The results of the study indicate that in right-handed individuals linear
dimensions from the left side were greater when compared with those taken from the right
side. In left-handed subjects right dimensions were greater when compared with the left side.
However, the difference between the sides was more prominent in right-handed individuals.
While significant difference was observed between right and left-handed individuals related
with composite directional asymmetry no significant difference was observed between the two
sexes. In conclusion, extreme handedness may affect the level of directional facial asymmetry,
and this may be caused by the asymmetrical development of the cerebral hemispheres.

Keywords: Facial asymmetry, directional asymmetry, extreme handedness, brain lateraliza-

tion

Introduction
Bilateral or mirror symmetry involves reflection across an axis of symmetry. Left and
right sides are mirror images of one another. It is the most common form of sym-
metry in the animal kingdom, and is the rule in the leaves of plants (see for review
Graham et al., 2010). Bilaterally symmetric organs are controlled by an identical set of
genes and therefore any non-directional differences between the sides are assumed to
be developmental perturbations in origin (Thornhill and Møller, 1997; Palmer and
Strobeck, 2003). However, directional differences with regards to handedness in


Corresponding author: Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Literature, Cumhuriyet University, Kampus
58140, Sivas, Turkey (e-mail: barisozener@yahoo.com)
ISSN: 2166-7411 Moment Publication ©2011
 Özener, Pelin, Kürkçüoğlu, Ertuğrul, and Zağyapan

limbs of humans are largely attributable to differential mechanical loading during

bone growth (e.g., Roy et al., 1994; Auerbach and Ruff, 2006; Özener, 2007; 2010).
There are two main types of asymmetry: fluctuating asymmetry (FA) and directional
asymmetry (DA) (VanValen, 1962; Palmer and Strobeck, 2003; Graham et al., 2010).
FA refers to small random deviations from perfect symmetry in bilaterally paired
structures, and it is thought to reflect an organism’s ability to cope with genetic and
environmental stress during development. DA refers to a pattern of bilateral varia-
tion in a sample of individuals where a statistically significant difference exists be-
tween sides, but the larger side is generally the same side, detected by statistical tests
for departures of mean R - L from zero.
Humans (Homo sapiens) have complex language and a population bias toward
right-handedness. Approximately 90% of humans are right-handed, exhibiting a
preference to use the right hand for skilled and unskilled activities, whereas the re-
maining 10% prefer to use the left hand (McManus, 2002). Reasons of extreme hand-
edness in humans have been studied by several authors. It is known that left-
handedness increases in central nervous system (CNS) pathologies, and this may be
explained by the adaptation of the individual with CNS pathology to use the other
(left) hand. In other words environmental stress or some other pathological factors
during developmental process may cause an increase in left-handedness (e.g., Satz,
1972; Geschwind and Galaburda, 1987). On the other hand endocrine factors during
growth may also cause left-handedness. Especially being exposed to high level of
testosterone during fetal period or extreme sensibility to testosterone may affect the
development of CNS and causing left-handedness (Geschwind and Galaburda, 1985;
but see Tan and Tan, 2001).
There are only three studies in the literature on hand preference and facial
asymmetry (Keleş et al., 1997; Dane et al., 2002; 2004). These studies suggest that left
side of the face was larger than the right side in the right-handed subjects and vice
versa. However the DA level was lower in the left-handed individuals when com-
pared with right-handed ones. When the limb dimensions were evaluated in relation
to side preference, it was observed that limb asymmetry was lower in left-handers
(e.g., Roy et al., 1994; Auerbach and Ruff, 2006; Özener, 2010). Studies on bilateral
limb asymmetry suggested that the lower level of bilateral asymmetry in left-handed
individuals may be related with the lower level of left-handedness. The lower DA
value for the facial region in left-handed subjects may also be explained by the same
reason. In order to evaluate facial DA related with side preference in a reliable way
extreme left and right-handed individual should be taken into consideration for the
studies. Sample in the present study was totally composed of extreme left-handed
and extreme right-handed individuals.

Material and methods

Samples
Facial photographs of 72 (35 left-handed and 37 right-handed) Turkish male and 76
(39 left-handed and 37 right-handed) female university students, a total of 148 were
evaluated in order to determine the relationship between extreme functional asym-
metry and facial asymmetry. All the subjects in the sample were extreme left and
right-handed ones. Handedness was assessed via the Edinburgh Handedness Inven-
tory (Oldfield, 1971). Participants with scores of +100 were designated as extreme
right-handers, and participants with scores of -100 were designed as extreme left-
handers.

97
 Eurasian J Anthropol 2(2):96-101

Facial photographs
The photographs were taken with a digital camera (Nikon D40) from a distance of 1.5
meters and in front of a standard white background at a resolution of 1600 x 1200
pixels. Before taking the photographic facial images, subject’ hair was pushed away
from the face, shoulders, and neck region. Participants with apparent bruises/scars
and those who underwent facial surgical operation previously were excluded from
the study. Participants were asked to look straight into the camera and maintain a
neutral facial expression with their mouth closed and eyes opened. Adobe Photoshop
was used to rotate photographs so that both pupil centers were located on the same y
coordinate. A two way mixed model ANOVA (individuals [random] * sides [fixed])
was used for estimating repeatability of the asymmetry (see Palmer and Strobeck,
2003). For this analysis two photos of 50 subjects (25 males and 25 females) were
measured. This test demonstrated that the sides * individuals MS (interaction term)
of all landmark displacements from the midline of the face is significantly greater
than the among-photo variation (all P < 0.0001).

Analysis of facial symmetry

The analysis of facial symmetry from photographs was done on the basis of 14
somatometric landmarks in NIH-Image 1.62. The sizes of left and right sides of eight
distance traits [outer eyes (P1-P2), inner eyes (P3-P4), eye width (P2,4-P1,3), face width
(P5-P6), nose width (P7-P8), cheek width (P9-P10), mouth width (P11-P12), and jaw width
(P13-P14)] were calculated in relation to the symmetry plane as defined by the mid-
points of all traits except for eye width trait. The midpoints of seven lines were calcu-
lated using the formula (left point - right point) / 2 + right point. On a perfectly
symmetrical face all midpoints lie on the symmetry plane and the sum of non-
redundant midpoint differences will be zero. All measurements were made to the
nearest pixel. Reliability of landmark placement was tested and found high in a sub-
set of 50 faces (25 males and 25 females) of each group, respectively (all r = 0.74 to
0.90, all P < 0.001).
Directional (DA; R-L), composite directional (CDA; Σ(R-L)2/n) and absolute
asymmetries |R – L| were determined. For the subsequent statistical analyses, only
the composite index was used because composite scores often show more extreme
associations with fitness parameters than single trait asymmetry measures (see for
review Leung and Forbes, 1997; Gangestad and Thornhill, 1999). There was no signifi-
cant relation between age and composite facial DA for total sample (P = 0.25).

Departures from normality

Departures from normality, skewness and kurtosis (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) for signed
right - left values were calculated for all traits. In the right-hander group, outer eye,
nose width and jaw width were positively skewed (P < 0.01), in left hander group,
outer distance and jaw width negatively skewed (P < 0.05). However, none of the
measures had antisymmetry or showed leptokurtic distribution. Possible outliers
were identified visually from scatter plots as suggested by Palmer and Strobeck
(2003), and then these measures were tested and removed according to Grubbs' test
in the raw and signed asymmetry data. Fourteen measurements were found to be
outliers and therefore excluded from the sample. A normal distribution was attained
after these measurements were excluded from the data set. The Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS of version 13.0) was used for all statistical calculations and pro-
cesses. In order to estimate effect size, we report partial eta squared (p 2) (Pierce et al.,

98
 Özener, Pelin, Kürkçüoğlu, Ertuğrul, and Zağyapan

2004).

Results
Table 1 indicates that left side of the face is significantly larger in the right-handed
subjects while the right side was larger in the left-handed ones. DA levels in right-
handed individuals were significant for six bilateral variables.

Table 1: Directional (DA) and absolute asymmetry (AA) values of the study groups
Extreme right-handed Extreme left-handed
Males Females Males Females
DA AA DA AA DA AA DA AA
P1,P2-PS -1.18* 1.26 -1.22** 1.27 0.82 1.33 0.99* 1.38
P3,P4-PS -0.85 1.00 -0.78 0.92 0.45 0.98 0.76 0.95
P2,4-P1,3 -1.32* 1.39 -1.11* 1.47 0.92 1.37 0.97 1.43
P5,P6-PS -2.21** 1.22 -1.95* 1.24 1.19* 1.26 1.11* 1.13
P9,P10-PS -2.12** 2.32 -2.22** 2.31 1.02* 2.07 1.12 2.18
P7,P8-PS -0.88 1.87 -0.89 1.81 0.78 1.99 0.79 1.74
P11,P12-PS -1.67* 1.15 -1.56* 0.91 1.07* 1.21 1.30* 1.24
P13,P14-PS -2.11** 1.51 -2.08* 1.63 1.09* 1.56 0.91* 1.49
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01

However in left-handed subjects DA levels were significant only for four bilateral
traits. Asymmetry in the right-handed individual was more prominent in the central
region of the face. In male subjects DA was marked in the lower face while it was
more prominent in the upper facial region in female subjects when compared with
the lower face. Full factorial ANOVA results indicate that (i) composite DA levels for
left-handed and right-handed individuals were significantly different (F1,143 = 14.07, P
< 0.0001, p2 = 0.21), (ii) however there is no significant sex difference (F1,143 = 0.09, P
> 0.05, p2 = 0.09), (iii) no significant interaction was observed between side prefer-
ence and sex (F1,143 = 2.10, P >0.05, p2 = 0.08).

Discussion
Brain lateralization and evolutionary forces involved in human handedness have
been of interest to researchers for a very long time. In spite of a relatively high pro-
portion of left-handers in human populations, left-handedness had been considered
anomalous or pathological (see Coren, 1994; De Agostini et al., 1997). It is well known
that the right upper limb is more extreme and larger than the left in all persons who
are born right-handed (Roy et al., 1994; Auerbach and Ruff, 2006; Özener, 2007; 2010).
However, biases for the lower limbs are not so significant (Auerbach and Ruff, 2006;
Özener, 2010). In order to eliminate the mechanical factors on symmetry it is better to
study facial symmetry related with side preference. However studies on the men-
tioned subject are limited. Van Valen (1967) asserted that intensively used mimetic
muscles during voluntary smiles may cause asymmetry in facial soft tissues. Contra-
ry to Van Valen’s ideas, Sackeim and Gur (1978) claimed that side dominance in the
face was not related with asymmetrical morphology. On the other hand, Trenouth
(1985) suggested that craniofacial asymmetry originates in early prenatal period.
However all the researchers, mentioned above, agree that asymmetric structure in
craniofacial soft tissue is related to asymmetrical development of the brain.
Various studies of craniofacial asymmetry have been reported in the literature,
but none have been on the relationship between facial asymmetry and “extreme”

99
 Eurasian J Anthropol 2(2):96-101

handedness. In studies of craniofacial asymmetry (Keleş et al., 1997; Dane et al., 2002;
2004), mainly the cranial tomographies were evaluated, but the effects of extreme
handedness on craniofacial morphology have not been studied. The results of the
present study in which craniofacial asymmetry had been evaluated related with ex-
treme handedness indicate that the left side of the face is larger in extreme right-
handed individuals. In extreme left-handed individuals, the right side of the face is
larger than the left side (Table 1). However DA in extreme left-handed people is not
as high as it is in extreme right-handed ones. In other words extreme right-
handedness causes a more apparent increase in DA. Also in a similar study on ante-
ro-posterior cephalographies by Keleş et al. (1997) it was reported that asymmetry in
left-handed individuals was not as marked as it was in right-handed subjects. The
present study also indicates that cross asymmetry in male subjects is more prominent
than in females. However, this sex difference is not significant. In their studies of cra-
niofacial tomographies, Dane at al. (2002) also reported that sex did not have a signif-
icant effect on the pattern of DA.
The present study indicates that the effect of left-handedness on facial asym-
metry is lower when it is compared with right-handedness even when it is at the
same extreme level. When the relationship between Broca’s center in the cerebral
cortex and side preference was evaluated it was seen that though 95% of right-
handed people have left hemisphere dominance for language, only 18.8% of left-
handed people have right hemisphere dominance for language function. Additional-
ly, 19.8% of the left-handed have bilateral language functions (see Taylor and Taylor,
1990). In other words, the level of lateralization is lower in left-handed individuals.
In conclusion, extreme side preference has an obvious effect on craniofacial
asymmetry. However, the effect of right-handedness on facial DA is more prominent.
These results indicate that craniofacial asymmetry in left-handed individuals is not
prominent, just as it is in cerebral dominance for language. However, there is a lack
in the literature on this subject. More research needs to be done on extreme handed-
ness and facial symmetry.

Acknowledgement
We thank Dr. İzzet Duyar and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments
to the manuscripts and their constructive suggestions.

Bibliography
Auerbach BM, Ruff CB. (2006) Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and commonality
among modern humans. J Hum Evol 50:203-218.
Coren S. (1994) Age trends in handedness: evidence for historical changes in social pressure
on the writing hand. J Soc Behav Pers 9:369-76.
Dane Ş, Gümüştekin K, Polat P, Uslu C, Akar S, Daştan A. (2002) Relations among hand pref-
erence, craniofacial asymmetry, and ear advantage in young subjects. Percept Mot Skills
95:416-422.
Dane Ş, Ersöz M, Gümüştekin K, Polat P, Daştan A. (2004) Handedness differences in widths
of right and left craniofacial regions in healthy young adults. Percept Mot Skills 98:1261-
1264.
De Agostini M, Khamis AH, Ahui AM, Dellatolas G. (1997) Environmental influences in hand
preference: an African point of view. Brain Cogn 35:151–167.
Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. (1999) Individual differences in developmental precision and
fluctuating asymmetry: a model and its implications. J Hum Evol 12:402-416.
Geschwind N, Galaburda AM. (1987) Cerebral lateralization: biological mechanisms, associa-
tions and pathology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Geschwind N, Galaburda AM. (1985) Cerebral lateralization, biological mechanisms, associa-

100
 Özener, Pelin, Kürkçüoğlu, Ertuğrul, and Zağyapan

tions, and pathology: I. A hypothesis and a program for research. Arch Neurol 42:428–459.
Graham JH, Raz S, Hel-Or H, Nevo E. (2010) Fluctuating asymmetry: methods, theory, and
applications. Symmetry 2:466-540.
Keleş P, Diyarbakırlı S, Tan M, Tan Ü. (1997) Facial asymmetry in right and left-handed men
and women. Int J Neurosci 9:147-160.
Leung B, Forbes MR. (1997) Modeling fluctuating asymmetry in relation to stress and fitness.
Oikos 78:397-405.
McManus IC. (2002) Right hand, left hand: the origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms
and cultures. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oldfield RC. (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory.
Neuropsychologia 9:97-113.
Özener B. (2007) Biomechanical pressures and upper extremity: a study on young laborers.
Coll Anthropol 31:693-699.
Özener B. (2010) Fluctuating and directional asymmetry in young human males: effect of
heavy working condition and socioeconomic status. Am J Pyhs Anthropol 143:112-120.
Palmer AR, Strobeck C. (2003) Fluctuating asymmetry analysis revisited. In: Polak, M, editor.
Developmental instability: causes and consequences. New York: Oxford University Press,
pp 279-319
Pierce CA, Block RA, Aguinis H. (2004) Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from
multicaftor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas 64:91-924.
Roy TA, Ruff CB, Plato CC. (1994) Hand dominance and bilateral asymmetry in structure of
the second metacarpal. Am J Phys Anthropol 94:203-211.
Sackeim HA, Gur RC. (1978) Lateral asymmetry in intensity of emotional expression.
Neuropsychologia 16:473–481.
Satz P. (1972) Pathological left-handedness: an explanation model. Cortex 8:121-135.
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological re-
search. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Tan U, Tan M. (2001) Testosterone and grasp-reflex differences in human neonates. Laterality
6:181-192.
Taylor I, Taylor MM. (1990) Psycholinguistics: learning and using language. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs.
Thornhill R, Møller AP. (1997) Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb
Philos Soc 72:497-548.
Trenouth MJ. (1985) Asymmetry of the human skull during fetal growth. Anat Rec 211:205-
212.
Van Valen L. (1962) A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 16:125-142.

101