Literature DB >> 16761977

Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation.

S Ivan Perez1, Valeria Bernal, Paula N Gonzalez.   

Abstract

Over the last decade, geometric morphometric methods have been applied increasingly to the study of human form. When too few landmarks are available, outlines can be digitized as series of discrete points. The individual points must be slid along a tangential direction so as to remove tangential variation, because contours should be homologous from subject to subject whereas their individual points need not. This variation can be removed by minimizing either bending energy (BE) or Procrustes distance (D) with respect to a mean reference form. Because these two criteria make different assumptions, it becomes necessary to study how these differences modify the results obtained. We performed bootstrapped-based Goodall's F-test, Foote's measurement, principal component (PC) and discriminant function analyses on human molars and craniometric data to compare the results obtained by the two criteria. Results show that: (1) F-scores and P-values were similar for both criteria; (2) results of Foote's measurement show that both criteria yield different estimates of within- and between-sample variation; (3) there is low correlation between the first PC axes obtained by D and BE; (4) the percentage of correct classification is similar for BE and D, but the ordination of groups along discriminant scores differs between them. The differences between criteria can alter the results when morphological variation in the sample is small, as in the analysis of modern human populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16761977      PMCID: PMC2100233          DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2006.00576.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  27 in total

1.  Corpus callosum shape and neuropsychological deficits in adult males with heavy fetal alcohol exposure.

Authors:  Fred L Bookstein; Ann P Streissguth; Paul D Sampson; Paul D Connor; Helen M Barr
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Craniodental variation in Paranthropus boisei: a developmental and functional perspective.

Authors:  B Wood; D E Lieberman
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.868

3.  Landmark coordinates aligned by procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space.

Authors:  D E Slice
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 15.683

4.  Do homoiologies impede phylogenetic analyses of the fossil hominids? An assessment based on extant papionin craniodental morphology.

Authors:  Stephen J Lycett; Mark Collard
Journal:  J Hum Evol       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 3.895

5.  How and why humans grow thin skulls: experimental evidence for systemic cortical robusticity.

Authors:  D E Lieberman
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 2.868

6.  Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis.

Authors:  F L Bookstein
Journal:  Bull Math Biol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 1.758

7.  Surface-bounded growth modeling applied to human mandibles.

Authors:  P R Andresen; F L Bookstein; K Conradsen; B K Ersbøll; J L Marsh; S Kreiborg
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 10.048

8.  Phenotypic covariance structure in tamarins (genus Saguinus): a comparison of variation patterns using matrix correlation and common principal component analysis.

Authors:  R R Ackermann; J M Cheverud
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.868

9.  Geometric morphometrics in primatology: craniofacial variation in Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.

Authors:  J M Lynch; C G Wood; S A Luboga
Journal:  Folia Primatol (Basel)       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.246

10.  The epigenetic influence of growth hormone on skeletal development.

Authors:  C Vogl; W R Atchley; D E Cowley; P Crenshaw; J D Murray; D Pomp
Journal:  Growth Dev Aging       Date:  1993
View more
  64 in total

1.  Developmental plasticity in covariance structure of the skull: effects of prenatal stress.

Authors:  Paula N Gonzalez; Benedikt Hallgrímsson; Evelia E Oyhenart
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 2.610

2.  Variation in the shape and mechanical performance of the lower jaws in ceratopsid dinosaurs (Ornithischia, Ceratopsia).

Authors:  Leonardo Maiorino; Andrew A Farke; Tassos Kotsakis; Luciano Teresi; Paolo Piras
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  Bony labyrinth shape variation in extant Carnivora: a case study of Musteloidea.

Authors:  Camille Grohé; Z Jack Tseng; Renaud Lebrun; Renaud Boistel; John J Flynn
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 2.610

4.  Landmark-free geometric methods in biological shape analysis.

Authors:  Patrice Koehl; Joel Hass
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2015-12-06       Impact factor: 4.118

5.  Why should we investigate the morphological disparity of plant clades?

Authors:  Jack W Oyston; Martin Hughes; Sylvain Gerber; Matthew A Wills
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 4.357

6.  Illustrating ontogenetic change in the dentition of the Nile monitor lizard, Varanus niloticus: a case study in the application of geometric morphometric methods for the quantification of shape-size heterodonty.

Authors:  Domenic C D'Amore
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.610

7.  Measurement error in μCT-based three-dimensional geometric morphometrics introduced by surface generation and landmark data acquisition.

Authors:  Karolin Engelkes; Jennice Helfsgott; Jörg U Hammel; Sebastian Büsse; Thomas Kleinteich; André Beerlink; Stanislav N Gorb; Alexander Haas
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 2.610

8.  If the skull fits: magnetic resonance imaging and microcomputed tomography for combined analysis of brain and skull phenotypes in the mouse.

Authors:  Brian J Nieman; Marissa C Blank; Brian B Roman; R Mark Henkelman; Kathleen J Millen
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 3.107

9.  Shape covariation between the craniofacial complex and first molars in humans.

Authors:  Georgios Polychronis; Demetrios J Halazonetis
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 2.610

10.  Discrepancy between cranial and DNA data of early Americans: implications for American peopling.

Authors:  S Ivan Perez; Valeria Bernal; Paula N Gonzalez; Marina Sardi; Gustavo G Politis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.