The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: Theory, methods, and modifications

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Volumn 134, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 24-35

  Von Cramon Taubadel, Noreen ^a   Frazier, Brenda C ^b   Lahr, Marta Mirazón ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Measurement error; Morphometrics; Pinocchio effect; Precision

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; EMPIRICISM; GEOMETRY; MORPHOMETRICS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; THEORY;

ANTHROPOMETRY; BONE AND BONES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 34547911458     PISSN: 00029483     EISSN: 10968644     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20616     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the 'revolution'. Ital J Zool 71:5-16.
2. Bastir M, Rosas A. 2005. Hierarchical nature of morphological integration and modularity in the human posterior face. Am J Phys Anthropol 128:26-34.
3. Boas F. 1905. The horizontal plane of the skull and the general problem of the comparison of variable forms. Science 21:862-863.
4. Bookstein FL. 1984. A statistical method for biological shape comparisons. J Theor Biol 107:475-520.
5. Bookstein FL. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11:567-585.
6. Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bookstein FL, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Prossinger H, Schaefer K, Seidler H. 2003. Cranial integration in Homo: singular warps analysis of the midsagittal plane in ontogeny and evolution. J Hum Evol 44:167-187.
8. Chapman R. 1990. Conventional Procrustes approaches. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL, editors. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop (Special publication No. 2). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. p 251-267.
9. Cheverud JM, Lewis J, Bachrach W, Lew W. 1983. The measurement of form and variation in form: an application of three-dimensional quantitative morphology by finite-element methods. Am J Phys Anthropol 62:151-165.
10. Cobb SN, O'Higgins P. 2004. Hominins do not share a common postnatal facial ontogenetic shape trajectory. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 302B:302-321.
11. Collard M, O'Higgins P. 2001. Ontogeny and homoplasy in the papionin monkey face. Evol Dev 3:322-331.
12. Corner BD, Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. 1992. Measuring precision of three-dimensional landmark data. J Quant Anthropol 3:347-359.
13. Dahlberg G. 1926. Twin births and twins from the hereditary point of view. Stockholm: Bokförlags A.B. Tidens Tryckeri.
14. Davenport CB, Steggerda M, Drager W. 1935. Critical examination of physical anthropometry on the living. Proc Am Acad Arts Sci 69:265-285.
15. Delson E, Harvati K, Reddy D, Marcus LF, Mowbray KM, Sawyer GJ, Jacob T, Marquez S. 2001. The Sambungmacan 3 Homo erectus calvaria: a comparative morphometric and morphological analysis. Anat Rec 262:380-397.
16. Dryden IL, Mardia KV. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. London: Wiley.
17. Franklin D. 2005. Cranial variation in southern Africa. Ph.D. dissertation. Perth: University of Western Australia.
18. Frost SR, Marcus LF, Bookstein FL, Reddy DP, Delson E. 2003. Cranial allometry, phylogeography, and systematics of large-bodies Papionins (Primates: cercopithecinae) inferred from geometric morphometric analysis of landmark data. Anat Rec A 275:1048-1072.
19. Goodall C. 1991. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. J R Stat Soc B 53:285-339.
20. Gower JC. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40:33-50.
21. Guy F, Brunet M, Schmittbuhl M, Viriot L. 2003. New approaches in hominoid taxonomy: morphometrics. Am J Phys Anthropol 121:198-218.
22. Harmon EH. 2007. The shape of the hominoid proximal femur: a geometric morphometric analysis. J Anat 210:170-185.
23. Harvati K. 2003a. Quantitative analysis of Neanderthal temporal bone morphology using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. Am J Phys Anthropol 120:323-338.
24. Harvati K. 2003b. The Neanderthal taxonomic position: models of intra- and inter- specific craniofacial variation. J Hum Evol 44:107-132.
25. Harvati K, Frost SR, McNulty KP. 2004. Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:1147-1152.
26. Heathcote GM. 1981. The magnitude and consequences of measurement error in human craniometry. Can Rev Phys Anthropol 3:18-40.
27. Jamison PL, Ward RE. 1993. Brief Communication: measurement size, precision, and reliability in craniofacial anthropometry: bigger is better. Am J Phys Anthropol 90:495-500.
28. Jamison PL, Zegura SL. 1974. A univariate and multivariate examination of measurement error in anthrometry. Am J Phys Anthropol 40:197-204.
29. Kendall DG. 1984. Shape manifolds, procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16:18-121.
30. Lele S. 1993. Euclidean distance matrix analysis (EDMA) of landmarks data: estimation of mean form and mean form difference. Math Geol 25:573-602.
31. Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. 1991. Euclidean distance matrix analysis: a coordinate-free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data. Am J Phys Anthropol 86:415-427.
32. Lockwood CA, Kimbel WH, Lynch JM. 2004. Morphometrics and hominoid phylogeny: support for the chimpanzee-human clade and differentiation among great ape subspecies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:4356-4360.
33. Lockwood CA, Lynch JM, Kimbel WH. 2002. Quantifying temporal bone morphology of great apes and humans: an approach using geometric morphometrics. J Anat 201:447-464.
34. Loy A, Corti M, Marcus LF. 1993. Landmark data: size and shape analysis in systematics. A case study on old world Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora). In: Marcus LF, Bello E, Garcia-Valdecasas A, editors. Contributions to morphometrics. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. p 215-240.
35. Mardia KV, Dryden IL. 1989. The statistical analysis of shape data. Biometrika 76:271-281.
36. Martinez-Abadias N, Gonzalez-Jose R, Gonzalez-Martin A, Van der Molen S, Talavera A, Hernandez P, Hernandez M. 2006. Phenotypic evolution of human craniofacial morphology after admixture: a geometric morphometrics approach. Am J Phys Anthropol 29:387-398.
37. Martin R, Saller K. 1957. Lehrbuch der anthropologie. Stuttgart: Fisher.
38. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bernhard M, Schaefer K, Bookstein FL. 2004. Comparison of cranial ontogenetic trajectories among great apes and humans. J Hum Evol 46:679-698.
39. Nicholson E, Havarti K. 2006. Quantitative analysis of human mandibular shape using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. Am J Phys Anthropol 131:368-383.
40. O'Higgins P. 2000. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J Anat 197:103-120.
41. O'Higgins P, Chadfield P, Jones N. 2001. Facial growth and the ontogeny of morphological variation within and between the primates Cebus apella and Cercocebus torquatus. J Zool Soc Lond 254:337-357.
42. O'Higgins P, Collard M. 2002. Sexual dimorphism and facial growth in papionin monkeys. J Zool Soc Lond 257:255-272.
43. O'Higgins P, Jones N. 1998. Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphological variation. J Anat 193:251-272.
44. O'Higgins P, Jones N. 2006. Tools for statistical shape analysis. York: Hull York Medical School. http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ fme/resources/software.htm
45. Richtsmeier JT, Deleon VB, Lele S. 2002. The promise of geometric morphometrics. Yearbook Phys Anthropol 45:63-91.
46. Richtsmeier JT, Lele SR, Cole TM III. 2005. Landmark morphometrics and the analysis of variation. In: Hallgrimsson B, Hall BK, editors. Variation. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press. p 49-68.
47. Rohlf FJ. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J Classification 16:197-223.
48. Rohlf FJ. 2000. Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:463-478.
49. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. TREE 8:129-132.
50. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40-59.
51. Siegel A, Benson R. 1982. A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics 38:341-350.
52. Singleton M. 2002. Patterns of cranial shape variation in the Papionini (Primates: Cercopithecinae). J Hum Evol 42:547-578.
53. Slice DE. 1998. Morpheus et al.: software for morphometric research. Revision 01-30-98. New York: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.
54. Slice DE. 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Syst Biol 50:141-149.
55. Spielman RS, Da Rocha FJ, Weitkamp LR, Ward RH, Neel JV, Chagnon NA. 1972. The genetic structure of a tribal population, the Yanomama Indians. VII. Anthropometric differences among Yanomama villages. Am J Phys Anthropol 37:345-356.
56. Valeri CJ, Cole TM III, Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. 1998. Capturing data from three-dimensional surfaces using fuzzy landmarks. Am J Phys Anthropol 107:113-124.
57. Vioarsdóttir US, O'Higgins P, Stringer C. 2002. A geometric morphometric study of regional differences in the ontogeny of the modern human facial skeleton. J Anat 201:211-229.
58. White TD, Folkens PA. 2000. Human osteology, 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.
59. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.