Allometric shape vector projection: A new method for the identification of allometric shape characters and trajectories applied to the human astragalus (talus)

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 272, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 64-71

  Parr, W C H ^a,b   Ruto, A ^a   Soligo, C ^a   Chatterjee, H J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allometry; Canonical sampling; Laser scanning; Principal components analysis; Scaling

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; ANATOMY; BONE; CANONICAL ANALYSIS; MORPHOMETRY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

ADULT; ALLOMETRY; ARTICLE; BONE STRUCTURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TALUS;

ADULT; ANTHROPOMETRY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TALUS;

EID: 78650493634     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.11.030     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Adams D.C., Rohlf F.J., Slice D.E. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the revolution. Italian Journal of Zoology 2004, 71:5-16.
2. Bookstein F.L. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), New York.
3. Besl P.J., Mckay N.D. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1992, 14:239-256.
4. Buxton, B., Tahan, A., Ruiz, M.C., 2003. Point distribution models of human body shape from a canonical representation of 3D scan data, In 3D Modelling 2003, Paris France, April 2003.
5. Douros, I., Ruiz, M.C., Buxton, B.F., Treleaven, P.C., 2002. Web-based software tools for 3D body database access and shape analysis. In numerisation 3D-Scanning, Paris, France, April 2002.
6. Day M.H., Wood B.A. Functional affinities of the Olduvai Hominid 8 talus. Man 1968, 3:440-455.
7. Gunz P., Mitteroecker P., Bookstein F. Landmarks in three dimensions. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology 2005, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. E. Slice (Ed.).
8. Gower J.C. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 1975, 40:33-51.
9. Gebo D.L., Schwartz G.T. Foot bones from omo: implications for hominid evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2006, 129:499-511.
10. Harcourt-Smith W.E. Form and function in the hominoid tarsal skeleton. Anthropology 2002, London, UCL.
11. Hellier C.A., Jeffery N. Morphological plasticity in the juvenile talus. Foot and Ankle Surgery 2006, 12:139-147.
12. Humphrey L.T. Growth patterns in the modern human skeleton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1998, 105:57-72.
13. Lewis O.J. Functional morphology of the evolving hand and foot 1989, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
14. Mitteroecker P., Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evolutionary Biology 2009, 36:235-247.
15. Mosimann J.E. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1970, 65(330):930-945.
16. O'Higgins P. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. Journal of Anatomy 2000, 197:103-120.
17. Parr W.C.H. Evolutionary and functional anatomy of the hominoid astragalus-new approaches using laser scanning technologies and 3D analyses 2009, UCL, University of London.
18. PET Polygon Editing Tool. 2 2006, Konica Minolta. 20th ed.
19. Polly P.D. Adaptive zones and the pinniped ankle. A three dimensional quantitative analysis of carnivoran tarsal evolution. Mammalian Evolutionary Morphology: A tribute to Frederick S. Szalay 2006, Kluwer/Plenum, New York. E.J. Sargis, M. Dagosto (Eds.).
20. Rohlf F.J., Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 1990, 39:40-59.
21. Ruto, A., Lee, M., Buxton, B., 2006. Comparing Principal and Independent Modes of Variation in 3D Human Torso Shape using PCA and ICA. ICA research network international workshop, University of Liverpool.
22. Ruto A. Dynamic human body modeling and animation 2009, UCL, University of London.
23. Rohlf F.J. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent space. Journal of Classification 1999, 16:197-223.
24. Siegel A.F., Benson R.H. A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics 1982, 38:341-350.
25. Scheuer L., Black S. Developmental juvenile osteology 2000, Academic Press Ltd., London.
26. Shea B.T. Heterochrony in primates. Heterochrony in Evolution 1988, Plenum Press, New York. L.M. McKinney (Ed.).
27. Thompson D.W. On growth and form 1917, Cambridge University Press.
28. Technology I.N.U.S. RapidForm 2006 2006, Inus Technology.
29. Van der Linde K., Houle D. Inferring the nature of allometry from geometric data. Evolutionary Biology 2009, 36:311-322.
30. Wolfram Research Inc., 2007. Mathematica, Version 6.0, Champaign, IL.
31. Wang W., Crompton R.H., Carey T.S., Gunter M.M., Li Y., Savage R., Sellers W.I. Comparison of inverse-dynamics musculo-skeletal models of AL 288-1 Australopithecus afarensis and KNM-WT 15000 Homo ergaster to modern humans, with implications for the evolution of bipedalism. Journal of Human Evolution 2004, 47:453-478.
32. Wang C.L., Cheng C.K., Chen C.W., Lu C.M., Hang Y.S., Liu T.K. Contact areas and pressure distributions in the subtalar joint. Journal of Biomechanics 1995, 28:269-279.