Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics

Journal of Human Evolution

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 665-683

  Rohlf, F James ^a  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

EDMA; Moment estimates; Procrustes; Reflection invariance; Sampling experiments; Shape coordinates; Tangent space

Indexed keywords

ERROR ANALYSIS; MORPHOMETRY; SHAPE;

PROCRUSTES;

EID: 0037659650     PISSN: 00472484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00047-2     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bancroft, T.A., Han, C.-P., 1981. Statistical theory and inference in research. Marcel Dekker, New York.
2. Bookstein, F.L., 1986. Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions (with discussion and rejoinder). Stat. Sci. 1, 181-242.
3. Bookstein, F.L., 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, New York.
4. Coward, W.M., Conathy, D.M., 1996. A Monte Carlo study of the inferential properties of three methods of shape comparison. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 99, 369-377.
5. Dryden, I.L., Mardia, K.V., 1998. Statistical shape analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
6. Freeman, H., 1963. Introduction to statistical inference. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
7. Goodall, C.R., 1991. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape (with discussion and rejoinder). J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B 53, 285-339.
8. Gower, J.C., 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multi-variate analysis. Biometrika 53, 325-338.
9. Kendall, D.G., 1981. The statistics of shape. In: Barnett, V. (Ed.), Interpreting multivariate data. Wiley, New York, pp. 75-80.
10. Kendall D.G., 1984. Shape-manifolds. Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull. London Math. Soc. 16. 81-121.
11. Kent, J.T., 1994. The complex Bingham distribution and shape analysis. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 56, 285-299.
12. Kent, J.T., Mardia, K.V., 1997. Consistency of Procrustes estimators, J. R. Stat. Soc. B 59, 281-290.
13. Knight, K., 2000. Mathematical statistics. Chapman and Hall. New York.
14. Lele, S., 1993. Euclidean distance matrix analysis: estimation of mean form and form difference. Math. Geol. 25, 573-602.
15. Lele, S., Cole, T.M. III, 1996. A new test for shape differences when variance-covariance matrices are unequal. J. Hum. Evol. 31, 193-212.
16. Lele, S.R., Richtsmeier, J.T., 2001. An invariant approach to statistical analysis of shapes. Chapman and Hall, New York.
17. Mardia, K.V., Dryden, I.L., 1989. Shape distributions for landmark data. Adv. Appl. Prob. 21, 742-755.
18. Mardia, K.V., Dryden, I.L., 1994. Shape averages and their bias. Adv. Applied Probability 26, 334-340.
19. MathWorks. 2000. MATLAB, version 6.
20. Rao, C.R., Suryawanshi, S., 1996. Statistical analysis of shape of objects based on landmark data. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 93, 12132-12136.
21. Rao, C.R., Suryawanshi, S., 1998. Statistical analysis of shape through triangulation of landmarks: a study of sexual dimorphism in hominids. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 95, 4121-4125.
22. Rohlf, F.J., 1995. Multivariate Analysis of shape using partialwarp scores. In: Mardia, K.V., Gill, C.A. (Eds.), Proceedings in Current issues in statistical shape analysis. University of Leeds, Leeds, pp. 154-158.
23. Rohlf, F.J., 1996. Morphometric spaces, shape components and the effects of linear transformations. In: Marcus, L.F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G.J.P., Slice, D.E. (Eds.), Advances in morphometrics. Plenum, New York, pp. 117-129.
24. Rohlf, F.J., 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J. Classification 16, 197-223.
25. Rohlf, F.J., 2000a. On the use of shape spaces to compare morphometric methods. Hystrix 11, 9-25.
26. Rohlf, F.J., 2000b. Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 111, 463-478.
27. Rohlf, F.J., 2002. tpsTri, version 1.14. Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York at Stony Brook. Available from http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph.
28. Rohlf, F.J., Marcus, L.F., 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology Evolution 8, 129-132.
29. Rohlf, F.J., Slice, D.E., 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 39, 40-59.
30. Slice, D.E., 1993. Extensions, Comparisons, and Applications of Superimposition Methods for Morphometric Analysis. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.
31. Slice, D., 2001. Landmarks aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Systematic Biology 50, 141-149.
32. Small, C.G., 1996. The statistical theory of shape. Springer, New York.
33. Stoyan, D., 1990. Estimation of Distances and Variances in Booksteins Landmarks Model. Biomet. J. 32, 843-849.
34. Stoyan, D., Frenz, M., 1993. Estimating Mean Landmark Triangles, Biomet. J. 35, 643-647.
35. Walker, J.A., 2000. Ability of geometric morphometric methods to estimate a known covariance matrix. Syst. Biol. 49, 686-696.