Shui Wuyang, Profico Antonio, O'Higgins Paul
Department of Archaeology, University of York, King's Manor, York YO1 7EP, UK.
Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Via Derna 1, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Animals (Basel). 2023 Jan 23;13(3):385. doi: 10.3390/ani13030385.
In landmark-based analyses of size and shape variation and covariation among biological structures, regions lacking clearly identifiable homologous landmarks are commonly described by semilandmarks. Different algorithms may be used to apply semilandmarks, but little is known about the consequences of analytical results. Here, we assess how different approaches and semilandmarking densities affect the estimates and visualisations of mean and allometrically scaled surfaces. The performance of three landmark-driven semilandmarking approaches is assessed using two different surface mesh datasets with different degrees of variation and complexity: adult human head and ape cranial surfaces. Surfaces fitted to estimates of the mean and allometrically scaled landmark and semilandmark configurations arising from geometric morphometric analyses of these datasets are compared between semilandmarking approaches and different densities, as well as with those from warping to landmarks alone. We find that estimates of surface mesh shape (i.e., after re-semilandmarking and then re-warping) made with varying numbers of semilandmarks are generally consistent, while the warping of surfaces using landmarks alone yields surfaces that can be quite different to those based on semilandmarks, depending on landmark coverage and choice of template surface for warping. The extent to which these differences are important depends on the particular study context and aims.
在基于地标点的生物结构大小、形状变化及协变分析中,缺乏清晰可识别同源地标点的区域通常用半地标点来描述。可使用不同算法来应用半地标点,但对于分析结果的影响却知之甚少。在此,我们评估不同方法和半地标点密度如何影响平均表面和异速生长缩放表面的估计及可视化。使用具有不同变异程度和复杂度的两个不同表面网格数据集(成人头部和猿类颅骨表面)评估三种由地标点驱动的半地标点方法的性能。在不同半地标点方法和密度之间,以及与仅通过向地标点进行变形得到的结果进行比较,对比拟合这些数据集几何形态测量分析所得平均及异速生长缩放地标点和半地标点配置估计值的表面。我们发现,使用不同数量半地标点得出的表面网格形状估计值(即重新设置半地标点然后重新变形之后)通常是一致的,而仅使用地标点对表面进行变形得到的表面,根据地标点覆盖范围和用于变形的模板表面选择,可能与基于半地标点的表面有很大不同。这些差异的重要程度取决于具体的研究背景和目标。