When Yonekura considered the portrait of Shigemori, unconfirmed as Takauji ASHIKAGA and the portrait of Mitsuyoshi, unconfirmed as Yoshiakira ASHIKAGA, he pointed out the similarity in appearance of the wooden figures of Takauji and Yoshiakira handed down in Toji-in Temple as one of his evidences; however, Shinichi MIYAJIMA, an art historian, criticized that the similarity in appearance could not be an evidence of identifying the portraits because it is not always true to identify the portrait based on the similarity in appearance in case of portraits in Japan.
米倉は、伝重盛像を足利尊氏、伝光能像を足利義詮に比定する際、等持院に伝わる尊氏木像・義詮木像との外見類似性を論拠の一つに挙げているが、美術史学者の宮島新一は、日本の肖像画は必ずしも外見の類似から像主を判断できないため、外見類似性を像主決定の論拠とすることを批判した。