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

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 var...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pérez, Sergio Iván, Bernal, Valeria, González, Paula Natalia
Formato: Articulo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/127263
Aporte de:
id I19-R120-10915-127263
record_format dspace
institution Universidad Nacional de La Plata
institution_str I-19
repository_str R-120
collection SEDICI (UNLP)
language Inglés
topic Ciencias Naturales
dental and facial data
minimum bending energy
minimum Procrustes distance
spellingShingle Ciencias Naturales
dental and facial data
minimum bending energy
minimum Procrustes distance
Pérez, Sergio Iván
Bernal, Valeria
González, Paula Natalia
Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation
topic_facet Ciencias Naturales
dental and facial data
minimum bending energy
minimum Procrustes distance
description 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.
format Articulo
Articulo
author Pérez, Sergio Iván
Bernal, Valeria
González, Paula Natalia
author_facet Pérez, Sergio Iván
Bernal, Valeria
González, Paula Natalia
author_sort Pérez, Sergio Iván
title Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation
title_short Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation
title_full Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation
title_fullStr Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation
title_full_unstemmed Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation
title_sort differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation
publishDate 2006
url http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/127263
work_keys_str_mv AT perezsergioivan differencesbetweenslidingsemilandmarkmethodsingeometricmorphometricswithanapplicationtohumancraniofacialanddentalvariation
AT bernalvaleria differencesbetweenslidingsemilandmarkmethodsingeometricmorphometricswithanapplicationtohumancraniofacialanddentalvariation
AT gonzalezpaulanatalia differencesbetweenslidingsemilandmarkmethodsingeometricmorphometricswithanapplicationtohumancraniofacialanddentalvariation
bdutipo_str Repositorios
_version_ 1764820451520937984