Análisis de Procrustes y el estudio de la variación morfológica/ Procrustes analysis and the study of morphological variation

  • Sebastián Torcida Grupo de Estadística. ECOSISTEMAS. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. UNCPBA. Tandil. Argentina
  • S. Ivan Perez División Antropología. Museo de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. CONICET

Resumen

RESUMEN El estudio de la variación morfológica ha ocupado un lugar central en la antropología, así como en el resto de las ciencias naturales, a partir de su surgimiento en el siglo XVIII. Desde un punto de vista cuantitativo, el estudio de la variación morfológica busca obtener información acerca del tamaño y la forma de una estructura. Tradicionalmente, estas propiedades han sido estudiadas a través de variables lineales tales como "ancho", "longitud", "altura" y empleando métodos estadísticos multivariados. En las décadas del 1980 y 1990 las técnicas cuantitativas de análisis de la variación morfológica fueron revolucionadas por el desarrollo y la aplicación de un método para estudiar coordenadas cartesianas de puntos anatómicos: el análisis de Procrustes. Desde entonces, este método ha ganado relevancia en el campo de la antropología biológica. El objetivo de este artículo es revisar los principios del análisis de Procrustes aplicado a coordenadas de puntos anatómicos y discutir el empleo de diferentes versiones del mismo en bioantropología. El texto está ordenado como sigue: en primer lugar revisamos diversas nociones básicas involucradas en los estudios morfométricos; entre ellos, los conceptos de tamaño y forma. En segundo lugar discutimos los principios del análisis de Procrustes y señalamos las diferencias entre sus dos versiones más importantes: la superposición por cuadrados mínimos y la superposición robusta por medianas repetidas. Finalmente, mostramos y discutimos algunos ejemplos de la aplicación de estos métodos en el campo de la antropología biológica.

ABSTRACT The study of morphological variation has occupied a central place in anthropology, as well as the rest of the natural sciences, from its emergence in the eighteenth century. From a quantitative point of view, the study of morphological variation search for information about the size and shape of a structure. Traditionally, these properties have been studied using linear variables such as "width", "length", "height" and using multivariate statistical methods. In the decades of 1980 and 1990 quantitative techniques for analyzing morphological variation were revolutionized by the development and implementation of a method to study the cartesian coordinates of anatomical landmarks, Procrustes analysis. Since then, this method has gained prominence in the field of biological anthropology. The aim of this paper is to review the principles of Procrustes analysis applied to coordinates of anatomical landmarks and discuss the use of its different versions in bioanthropology. The text is organized as follows: first review several basic concepts involved in the morphometric studies, among them the concepts of size and shape. Secondly we review the principles of Procrustes analysis, and point out the differences between their two major versions: the least-squares fit and the repeated-medians robust fit. Finally, we show and discuss some examples of the application of these methods in the field of biological anthropology.

Publicado on-line: 25/08/2012

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Métricas

Cargando métricas ...

Citas

Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital J Zool 71:5-16.

Beals KL, Smith CL, Dodd SM. 1984. Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Curr Anthropol 25:301-330.

Boas F. 1912. Changes in bodily form of descendants of immigrants. Am Anthropol 14:530-563.

Bookstein FL. 1982. Foundations of morphometrics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:451-470.

Bookstein FL. 1989. “Size and shape”: a comment on semantic. Syst Zool 38:173-180.

Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bookstein FL. 1996. Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull Math Biol 58:313-365.

Bookstein FL. 1997. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Localizing group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal 1:225-243.

Bookstein FL, Slice DE, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P. 2004. Anthropology takes control of morphometrics. Coll Antropol 28:121-132.

Corruccini RS. 1987. Shapes in morphometrics: comparative analyses. Am J Phys Anthropol 73:289-303.

Darroch JN, Mosimann JE. 1985. Canonical and principal component of shape. Biometrika 72:241-252.

Darwin C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.

Dryden IL, Mardia KV. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dryden IL, Walker G. 1999. Highly resistant regression and object matching. Biometrics 55:820-825.

Fleagle JG. 1999. Primate adaptation and evolution. New York: Academic Press.

Gower JC. 1971. Statistical methods of comparing different multivariate analyses of the same data. En: Hodson FR, Kendall DG, Tautu P, editores. Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p 138-149.

Gower JC. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40:33-51.

Howells W. 1969. The use of multivariate techniques in the study of skeletal populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 31:311-314.

Howells W. 1973. Cranial variation in man. A study by multivariate analysis of patterns of difference among recent human populations. Papers of Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.

Kendall DG. 1984. Shape-manifolds, Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16:81-121.

Larsen R. 2008. L1 Generalized Procrustes 2D Shape Alignment. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision 31(2-3):189-194.

Le Gros Clark WE. 1949. History of the primates. London: British Museum (Natural History).

Marcus LF. 1990. Traditional morphmetrics. En: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL, editores. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication Number 2. Ann Arbor. Michigan: The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. p 77-122.

Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. 2009. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol 36:235-247.

Mosimann JE. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 65:930-945.

Mosimann JE. 1988. Size and shape analysis. En: Kotz S, Johnson NL, editores. Encyclopedia of statistical science. New York: Wiley. p 497-508.

Mosimann JE, James FC. 1979. New statistical methods for allometry with application to Florida red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 33:444-459.

Relethford JH. 1984. Morphological size and shape variation among local human populations. J Hum Evol 13:191-194.

Relethford JH. 2004. Boas and beyond: migration and craniometric variation. Am J Hum Biol 16:379-386.

Reyment RA. 1985. Multivariate morphometrics and analysis of shape. Math Geol 17:591-609.

Richtsmeier JT, Burke Deleon V, Lele SR. 2002. The promise of geometric morphometrics. Yearb Phys Anthropol 45:63-91.

Rohlf FJ. 1990. Rotational fit (Procrustes) methods. En: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL, editores. Proceedings Michigan morphometrics Workshop. Special publication n° 2. Museum of Zoology. Michigan: University of Michigan. p 227-236.

Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129-132.

Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes Method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40-59.

Sibson R. 1978. Studies in the robustness of Multidimensional Scaling: Procrustes statistics. J R Statist Soc B 40:234-238.

Siegel AF. 1982. Robust regression using repeated medians. Biometrika 69(1):242-244.

Siegel AF, Benson RH. 1982. A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics 38:341-350.

Slice DE. 1996. Three-dimensional generalized resistant fitting and the comparison of least-squares and resistant fit residuals. En: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor G, Slice DE, editores. Advances in morphometrics. New York: Plenum Press. p 179-199.

Slice DE. 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall’s shape space. Syst Biol 50:141-149.

Slice DE. 2005. Modern morphometrics. En: Slice DE, editor. Modern morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. New York: Kliwer Academic Publishers. p 1-45.

Slice DE. 2007. Geometric morphometrics. Annu Rev Anthropol 36:261-81.

Sneath PHA, Sokal RR. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.

Thompson DW. 1917. On growth and form. London: Cambridge.

Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. 2004. Geometric morphometric for biologists: a Primer. London: Academic Press.
Publicado
2012-05-18
Cómo citar
Torcida, S., & Perez, S. I. (2012). Análisis de Procrustes y el estudio de la variación morfológica/ Procrustes analysis and the study of morphological variation. Revista Argentina De Antropología Biológica, 14(1), 131-141. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.unlp.edu.ar/raab/article/view/537
Sección
Artículos de Revisión