SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:su-170833"
 

Search: onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:su-170833" > Landmark Typology i...

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Landmark Typology in Applied Morphometrics Studies : What's the Point?

Wärmländer, Sebastian K. T. S. (author)
Linköpings universitet,Stockholms universitet,Institutionen för biokemi och biofysik,UCLA, California; Linköping University, Sweden,Affärsrätt,Filosofiska fakulteten,Stockholm Univ, Sweden; UCLA, CA USA
Garvin, Heather (author)
Des Moines Univ, IA USA
Guyomarc'h, Pierre (author)
Univ Bordeaux, France
show more...
Petaros, Anja (author)
Natl Board Forens Med, Dept Forens Med, Artillerigatan 12, S-58758 Linkoping, Sweden
Sholts, Sabrina B. (author)
Smithsonian Inst, DC 20560 USA
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
2018-11-28
2019
English.
In: Anatomical Record Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology. - : Wiley. - 1932-8486. ; 302:7, s. 1144-1153
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • Landmarks are the hallmark of biological shape analysis as discrete anatomical points of correspondence. Various systems have been developed for their classification. In the most widely used system, developed by Bookstein in the 1990s, landmarks are divided into three distinct types based on their anatomical locations and biological significance. As Bookstein and others have argued that different landmark types possess different qualities, e.g., that Type 3 landmarks contain deficient information about shape variation and are less reliably measured, researchers began using landmark types as justification for selecting or avoiding particular landmarks for measurement or analysis. Here, we demonstrate considerable variation in landmark classifications among 17 studies using geometric morphometrics (GM), due to disagreement in the application of both Bookstein's landmark typology and individual landmark definitions. A review of the literature furthermore shows little correlation between landmark type and measurement reproducibility, especially when factors such as differences in measurement tools (calipers, digitizer, or computer software) and data sources (dry crania, 3D models, or 2D images) are considered. Although landmark typology is valuable when teaching biological shape analysis, we find that employing it in research design introduces confusion without providing useful information. Instead, researchers should choose landmark configurations based on their ability to test specific research hypotheses, and research papers should include justifications of landmark choices along with landmark definitions, details on landmark collection methods, and appropriate interobserver and intraobserver analyses. Hence, while the landmarks themselves are crucial for GM, we argue that their typology is of little use in applied studies. Anat Rec, 302:1144-1153, 2019. 

Subject headings

NATURVETENSKAP  -- Biologi (hsv//swe)
NATURAL SCIENCES  -- Biological Sciences (hsv//eng)
SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP  -- Medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap -- Systemvetenskap, informationssystem och informatik med samhällsvetenskaplig inriktning (hsv//swe)
SOCIAL SCIENCES  -- Media and Communications -- Information Systems, Social aspects (hsv//eng)

Keyword

Bookstein
craniometrics
measurement precision
shape analysis
landmark classification

Publication and Content Type

ref (subject category)
art (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view