Quantitative shape analysis with weighted covariance estimates for increased statistical efficiency

Frontiers in Zoology

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Ragheb, Hossein ^a   Thacker, Neil A ^a   Bromiley, Paul A ^a   Tautz, Diethard ^b   Schunke, Anja C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875546782     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17429994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-16     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the 'revolution'. Ital J. Zool 2004, 71:5-16.
2. Klingenberg CP. Evolution and development of shape: integrating quantitative approaches. Nat Rev Gen 2010, 11:623-635.
3. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol 2009, 36(2):235-247.
4. Vignon M, Sasal P. The use of geometric morphometrics in understanding shape variability of sclerotized haptoral structures of monogeneans (Platyhelminthes) with insights into biogeographic variability. Parasitol Int 2010, 59(2):183-191. 10.1016/j.parint.2010.01.006, 20129065.
5. Bookstein FL. Tensor biometrics for changes in cranial shape. Ann Human Biol 1984, 11:413-437.
6. Goodall CR. The Statistical Analysis of Growth in Two Dimensions 1983, USA. Harvard University: Department of Statistics.
7. Kendall DG. Shape-manifolds, procrustean metrics, and complex projective spaces. Bull London Math Soc 1984, 16(2):81-121.
8. Bookstein FL. Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions. Stat Sci 1986, 1:181-242.
9. Mantel NA. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 1967, 27:209-220.
10. Peres-Neto PR, Jackson DA. How well do multivariate data sets match?The advantages of a procrustean superimposition approach over the mantel test. Oecologia 2001, 129:169-178.
11. Hubert M, Rousseeuw PJ, Branden K. ROBPCA: A new approach to robust principal component analysis. Technometrics 2005, 47:64-79.
12. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Bookstein FL. Semilandmarks in three dimensions. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology 2005, 73-98. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, Slice DE.
13. Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal 1997, 1(2):225-243.
14. Fitzpatrick JM, West JB, Maurer CR. Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998, 17(5):694-702. 10.1109/42.736021, 9874293.
15. Chui H, Rangarajan A. A new point matching algorithm for non-rigid registration. Comput Vision Image Underst 2003, 89(2-3):114-141.
16. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 1990, 39:40-59.
17. Walker JA. Ability of geometric morphometric methods to estimate a known covariance matrix. Syst Biol 2000, 49(4):686-696. 10.1080/106351500750049770, 12116434.
18. Richtsmeier JT, Deleon VB, Lele SR. The promise of geometric morphometrics. Yearbook Phys Anthropol 2002, 45:63-91.
19. Rohlf FJ. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. J Human Evol 2003, 44:665-683.
20. Lele S. Euclidean distance matrix analysis (EDMA): estimation of mean form and mean form difference. Math Geol 1993, 25(5):573-602.
21. Martinez-Abadias N, Heuze Y, Wang Y, Jabs EW, Aldridge K, Richtsmeier JT. FGF/FGFR signaling coordinates skull development by modulating magnitude of morphological integration: evidence from Apert syndrome mouse models. PLoS One 2011, 6(10):1-9.
22. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists, A Primer 2004, New York: Elsevier Academic Press.
23. Goodall CR. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. J R Stat Soc, Ser B (Methodological) 1991, 53(2):285-339.
24. Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. Statistical models in morphometric: are they realistic?. Syst Zool 1990, 39:60-69.
25. Theobald DL, Wuttke DS. Empirical bayes hierarchical models for regularizing maximum likelihood estimation in the matrix gaussian procrustes problem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103(49):18521-18527. 10.1073/pnas.0508445103, 1664551, 17130458.
26. Rohr K, Stiehl HS, Sprengel R, Buzug TM, Weese J, Kuhn MH. Landmark-based elastic registration using approximating thin-plate splines. IEEE Trans Medical Imaging 2001, 20(6):526-534.
27. Ragheb H Morphometric shape analysis with measurement covariance estimates. Proc. British Machine Vision Conference. 2011, Dundee, UK, Ragheb H.
28. Ragheb H, Thacker NA. Quantitative localisation of manually defined Landmarks. Proc. Medical Image Understanding and Analysis 2011, 221-225. London, UK..
29. Balachandran R Iterative solution for rigid-body point-based registration with anisotropic weighting. Proc. of SPIE (Medical Imaging), vol. 7261. 2009, 72613D-1-72613D-10. Balachandran R.
30. Beinat A, Crosilla F. A generalized factored stochastic model for the optimal global registration of LIDAR range images. Proc. of IAPRS, Vol. 34. 2002, 36-39.
31. Hyvarinen A, Karhunen J, Oja E. Independent Component Analysis 2001, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
32. Ruto A, Lee M, Buxton B. Comparing principal and independent modes of variation in 3D human torso shape using PCA and ICA. ICA Research Network International Workshop 2006, 1-4. Liverpool, UK.
33. Uzumcu M, Frangi RF, Reiber JHC, Lelieveldt BPF. Independent component analysis in statistical shape models. SPIE Med Imaging, Volume 5032. 2003, 375-383.
34. Mitteroecker P, Bukstein F. Linear discrimination, ordination, and the visualization of selection gradients in Modern Morphometrics. Evol Biol 2011, 38:100-114.
35. Luo B, Hancock ER. Iterative procrustes alignment with the EM algorithm. Image Vision Comput 2002, 20(5):377-396.
36. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Cooper DH, Graham J. Active shape models-their training and application. Comput Vision Image Underst 1995, 61:38-59.
37. Klingenberg CP Novelty and " homology-free" Morphometrics: What's in a name?. Evol Biol 2008, 35(3):186-190. Klingenberg CP.
38. Polly PD Developmental dynamics and G-Matrices: Can morphometric spaces be used to model phenotypic evolution?. Evol Biol 2008, 35(2):83-96. Polly PD.
39. Oxnard C, O'Higgins P. Biology clearly needs morphometrics. Does morphometrics need biology?. Biol Theory 2009, 4:84-97.
40. Bookstein FL, Slice DE, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P. Anthropology Takes Control of Morphometrics 2004, Vienna, Austria: Institute for Anthropology: University of Vienna.
41. Slice DE. Geometric morphometrics. Annual Rev Anthropol 2007, 36:261-281.
42. Perez SI, Bernal V, Gonzalez PN. Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental cariation. J Anat 2006, 208(6):769-784. 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2006.00576.x, 2100233, 16761977.
43. Gomez-Robles A, Olejniczak AJ, Martinon-Torres M, Prado-Simon L, de Castro JMB. Evolutionary novelties and losses in geometric morphometrics: a Practical approach through Hominin molar morphology. Evolution 2011, 65(6):1772-1790. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01244.x, 21644962.
44. Frederich B, Liu SYV, Dai CF. Morphological and genetic divergences in a coral reef damselfish, pomacentrus coelestis. Evol Biol 2012, 39:359-370.
45. Tipping ME, Bishop CM. Probabilistic principal component analysis. J R Stat Soc B 1999, 61(3):611-622.
46. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automatic Control 1974, 19(6):716-723.
47. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc B (Methodological) 1977, 39:1-38.
48. Barlow RJ Statistics: A Guide to the Use of Statistical Methods in the Physical Sciences. 1989, Wiley-Blackwell, Barlow RJ.
49. Fly Wing Data. Klingenberg Lab, The University of Manchester. [http://www.flywings.org.uk].
50. Schunke AC TINA manual landmarking tool: software for the precise digitization of 3D landmarks. Front Zool 2012, 9(6). Schunke AC.
51. Bromiley PA The TINA Geometric Morphometrics Toolkit. [http://www.tina-vision.net/docs/memos/2010-007.pdf], Bromiley PA.
52. Halgrimsson B, Lieberman DE, Young NM, Parsons T, Wat S. Evolution of covariance in mammalian skull. Novartis Foundation Symposium-Tinkering: The Microevolution of Development,Volume 284 2007, 164-184. New York: Wiley-Liss, Hall BK, Lieberman DE.
53. Bookstein FL. Registration error and functional image analysis. Workshop on Biomedical Statistics 2001, Leeds: UK.