Intermethod error in geometric morphometric and the relevance of texturization and landmark marking
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24215/18536387e057Keywords:
Bioanthropology, virtual anthropology, Southern PatagoniaAbstract
Morphometric analyses lead to biases in the level of precision, and therefore, error. Geometric morphometrics development has made it possible to create digital collections composed by records from diverse sources. The combined use of data obtained through multiple methods introduces a new type of error, the inter-method error. The joint use of distinct digitization sources will result in low error, as long as there are no significant differences in the results obtained among techniques. An analysis of the Procustes variance, a principal component analysis on the Procrustes coordinates and a hierarchical cluster analysis were carried out to analyse the inter-method and intra-observer error in eight human skulls from Southern Patagonia, digitized by computerized tomography, surface scanner and photogrammetry, using 35 landmarks type I, II and III. The results show that there are no significant differences between the digitization sources, so 3D files from different sources could be used together. No significant intra-observer error was observed for any of the sources, also presenting a lower magnitude than the intermethod error. In the present study, photogrammetry, the only method that permits
recovering the texture and in which the landmarks were previously indicated, is the source that presents the lowest error. Based on the results obtained, it is suggested that it is possible to perform satisfactory geometric morphometric analyses regardless of the source used for its registration, considering those analysed here, highlighting the influence of the texture and the registration of landmarks on the degree of error.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Arnqvist, G. y Martensson, T. (1998). Measurement error in geometric morphometrics: empirical strategies to assess and reduce. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 44, 73-96.
Balolia, K. L. y Massey, J. S. 2021. How does scanner choice and 3D model resolution affect data accuracy? Journal of Anatomy 238(3), 679-692. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.13343
Barbeito-Andrés, J., Anzelmo, M., Ventrice, F. y Sardi, M. L. (2012). Measurement error of 3D cranial landmarks of an ontogenetic sample using Computed Tomography. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research, 2(2), 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2012.05.005
Bookstein, F. L. (1991). Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press.
Brzbohatá, H., Prokop, J., Horák, M., Jančárck, A. y Velemínská, J. (2012). Accuracy and benefits of 3D bone surface modelling: a comparison of two methods of surface data acquisition reconstructed by laser scanning and computed tomography outputs. Collegium Antropologicum, 36(3), 801-806.
Buikstra, J. E. y Ubelaker, D. H. (1994). Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series N.44.
Burghardt, A. J., Link, T. M. y Majumdar, S. (2011). High resolution computed tomography for clinical imaging of bone microarchitecture. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 469(8), 2179-2193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1766-x
Buzi, C., Micarelli, I., Profico, A., Conti, J., Grassetti, R., Cristiano, W., Di Vincenzo, F., Tafuri, M. A. y Manzi, G. (2018). Measuring the shape: performance evaluation of a photogrammetry improvement applied to the Neanderthal skull Saccopastore 1. Acta Imeko, 7(3), 79-85.
Chiari, Y., Wang, B., Rushmeier, H. y Caccone, A. (2008). Using digital images to reconstruct three-dimensional biological forms: a new tool for morphological studies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 95(2), 425-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01055.x
von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Frazier, B. C. y Lahr M. M. (2007). The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: theory, methods, and modifications. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 134(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20616
D’Angelo del Campo, M. D., Curti, H., López, M. G., García Laborde, P., Valenzuela, L. O., Motti, J. M. B., Martucci, M., Palacio, P. I., González Martín, A. y Guichón, R. A. (2020). Base de Información Bioantropológica de Patagonia Austral (B.I.B.P.A). Revista Argentina de Antropología Biológica, 22(2), 1-13. http://doi.org/10.24215/18536387e018
Dudzik, B. y Kolatorowicz, A. (2016). Craniometric data analysis and estimation of biodistances. En M. A. Pilloud, y J. T. Hefner (Eds.), Biological distance analysis. Forensic and bioarchaeological perspectives (pp. 35-60). Elsevier Academic Press. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801966-5.00003-2
Evin, A., Souter, T., Hulme-Beaman, A., Ameen, C., Allen, R., Viacava, P., Larson, G., Cucchi, R. y Dobney, K. (2016). The use of close-range photogrammetry in zooarchaeology: creating accurate 3D models of wolf crania to study dog domestication. Journal of Archaeological Sciences: Reports, 9, 87-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.06.028
Ford, J. M. y Decker, S. J. (2016). Computed tomography slice thickness and its effects on three-dimensional reconstruction of anatomical structures. Journal of Forensic Raidology and Imaging, 4, 43-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jofri.2015.10.004
Fourie, Z., Damstra, J., Gerrits, P. O. y Ren Y. (2011). Evaluation of anthropometric accuracy and reliability using different three-dimensional scanning systems. Forensic Science International, 207(1-3), 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.09.018
Fox, N. S., Veneración, J. J. y Blois, J. L. (2020). Are geometric morphometric análisis replicable? Evaluating landmark measurement error and its impact on extant and fossil Microtus classification. Ecology and Evolution, 10(7), 3260-3275. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6063
Friess, M. (2012). Scratching the surface? The use of surface scanning in physical and paleoanthropology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 90, 1-25.
Fruciano, C. (2016). Measurement error in geometric morphometrics. Development, genes and evolution, 226(3), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00427-016-0537-4
Fruciano, C., Celik, M. A., Butler, K., Dooley, T., Weisbecker, V. y Philips, M. J. (2017). Sharing is caring? Measurement error and the issues arising from combining 3d morphometric datasets. Ecology and Evolution, 7(17), 7034-7046. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3256
González, P. N., del Papa, M. y Gordón, F. (2004). El error de observación y su influencia en los análisis morfológicos de restos óseos humanos. Revista Argentina de Antropología Biológica, 6(1), 61-75.
Hassett, B. R. y Lewis-Bale, T. (2016). Comparison of 3D landmark and 3D dense cloud approaches to hominin mandible morphometrics using structure from motion. Archaeometry, 59(1), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12229
Jurda, M. y Urbanová, P. (2016). Three-dimensional documentation of Dolní Vestonice skeletal remains: can photogrammetry substitute laser scanning? Antrhropologie. International Journal of Human Diversity and Evolution, LIV(2), 109-118.
Katz, D. y Friess, M. (2014). Technical note: 3D from standard digital photography of human crania – A preliminary assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 154(1), 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22468
Klingenberg, C. P. (2011). MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources, 11(2), 353-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x
Klingenberg, C. P., Barluenga, M. y Meyer, A. (2002). Shape analysis of symmetric structures: Quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution, 56(10), 1.909-1.920. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00117.x
Kullmer, O. (2008). Benefits and risks in virtual anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Science, 86, 205-207.
Kuzminsky, S. C. y Gardiner, M. S. (2013). Three-dimensional laser scanning: potential uses for museum conservation scientific research. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(8), 2744-2755. https://oi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.020
Lemey, P., Salemi, M. y Vandamme, A.-W. (2009). The phylogenetic handbook. A practical phylogenetic analysis and typotesis Testing (2ª Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mathys, A., Brecko, J. y Semal, P. (2014). Cost analyse of 3D digitisation techniques. En: M. Ioannides, N., Magnenat-Thalmann, E., Fink, R., Zarnic, A.-Y- Yen y E. Quak (Eds.), 5th International conference; digital heritage, progress in cultural heritage: documentation, preservation, and protection. (pp. Vol 4, 206-212). Springer.
Muñoz-Muñoz, F. y Perpiñán, D. (2010). Measurement error in morphometric studies: comparison between manual and computerized methods. Annales Zoologici Fenici, 47(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.047.0105
Muñoz-Muñoz, F., Quinto-Sánchez, M. y González-José, R. (2016). Photogrammetry: a useful tool for three-dimensional morphometric analysis of small mammals. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 54(4), 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzs.12137
Ortiz Sanz, J., Gil Docampo, M., Martínez Rodríguez, S., Rego Sanmartín, M. T. y Mejide Cameselle, G. (2010). A simple methodology for recording petroglyphs using low-cost digital image correlation photogrammetry and consumer-grade digital cameras. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(12), 3158-3169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.07.017
Pérez, S. I., González, P. N., Bernal, V., del Papa, M. C., Barreiro, A., Negro, C. y Martínez, L. (2004). El error de observación y su influencia en los análisis morfológicos de restos óseos humanos. Revista Argentina de Antropología Biológica, 6(1), 61-75.
Profico, A., Bellucci, L., Buzi, C., Di Vincenzo, F., Micarelli, U., Strani, F., Tafuri, M. A. y Manzi, G. (2018). Virtual anthropology and its application in cultural heritage studies. Studies in Conservation, 64(6):323-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2018.1507705
Robinson, C. y Terhune C. E. (2017). Error in geometric morphometric data collection: combining data from multiple sources. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 164(1), 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23257
Rohlf, F. J. y Slice, D. (1990). Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology, 39(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/2992207
Ross, A. H. y Willians, S. (2008). Testing repeatability and error of coordinate landmark data acquired from crania. Journal of Forensic Science, 53(4), 782-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00751.x
Schlicher, W., Nielsen, I., Huang, J. C., Maki, K., Hatcher, D. C. y Miller, A. J. (2012). Consistency and precision in landmark identification in three dimensional cone beam computed tomography scans. European Journal of Orthodontics, 34(3), 263-275. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq144
Sforza, C., de Menezes, M. y Ferrario, V. F. (2013). Soft- and hard-tissue facial anthropometry in three dimensions: what’s new. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 91, 159-184.
Shearer, B. M., Cooke, S. B., Halenar, L. B., Reber, S. L., Plummer, J. E., Delson, E. y Tallman M. (2017). Evaluating causes of error in landmark-based data collection using scanners. PLoS ONE, 12(11), e0187452. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187452
Sholts, S. B., Flores, L., Walker, P. L. y Wärmländer, S. K. T. S. (2011). Comparison of coordinate measurement precision of different landmark types on human crania using 3D laser scanner and a 3d digitiser: implications for applications of digital morphometrics. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 21(5), 535-543. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1156
Spoor, F., Jeffery, N. y Zonneveld, F. (2000). Using diagnostic radiology in human evolutionary studies. Journal Anatomy, 197(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710061.x
Toneva, D., Nikolova, S., Georgiev, I. y Lazarov, N. (2020). Impact of resolution and texture of laser scanning generated three-dimensional models on landmark identification. The Anatomical Record, 303, 1950-1965. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24272
Veneziano, A., Landi, F. y Profico, A. (2018). Surface smoothing, decimation, and their effects on 3D biological specimens. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 166(2), 473-480. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23431
Waltenbergerer, L., Rebay-Salisbury, K. y Mitteroecker, P. (2021). Three-dimensional surface scanning methods in osteology: a topographical and geometric morphometric comparison. American Journal of Physical Anthopology, 174(4), 846-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24204
Weber, G. W. (2015). Virtual anthropology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 156(S59), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22658
Weber, G. W., Recheis, W., Scholze, T. y Seidler, H. (1998). Virtual anthropology (VA): methodological aspects of linear and volume measurements, first results. Collegium antropologicum, 22(2), 575-584.
White, J. D., Ortega-Castrillón, A., Virgo, C., Indencleef, K., Hoskens, H., Shiver, M. D. y Claes, P. (2020). Sources of variation in the 3dMDface and Vectra H1 3D facial imaging systems. Scientific Reports, 10, 4443. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61333-3
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Manuel Domingo D'Angelo del Campo, Laura Medialdea, Pamela García Laborde, Daniel García-Martínez, Markus Bastir, Rolando González-José, Armando González Martín, Ricardo Anibal GuichónThe RAAB is a diamond-type open access journal. There are no charges for reading, sending or processing the work. Likewise, authors maintain copyright on their works as well as publication rights without restrictions.
