Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
superimposition. Estimates of the explicit uniform components under SBR are identical to
those derived from the Procrustes-based method presented here. This is not surprising,
since the Procrustes superimposition differs from SBR only in the implicit uniform defor-
mations (assuming that the Procrustes superimposition, like SBR, is performed with cen-
troid size set to one, two superimpositions differ only in the rotation and translation
terms). Thus, a deformation displayed by a Procrustes superimposition shows the same
change in shape as the deformation displayed by SBR
the differences between them are
due to the implicit deformations, and do not alter shape. Deformations shown by BC differ
from those in Procrustes superimposition in scale as well as rotation and translation, but
these are still implicit uniform terms. Likewise, RFTRA differs from the other superimposi-
tions only in the implicit uniform terms.
References
Axler, S. (1996). Linear algebra done right. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bookstein, F. L.
(1989). Principal warps: Thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations.
IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11, 567 585.
Bookstein, F. L. (1991). Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bookstein, F. L. (1996). Standard formula for the uniform shape component in landmark data. In L. F. Marcus, M.
Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, & D. E. Slice (Eds.), Advances in morphometrics (pp. 53 168). New York: Plenum.
Bookstein, F. L. (1997). Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in
outline shape. Medical Image Analysis, 1,97 118.
Dryden, I. L., & Mardia, K. V. (1998). Statistical shape analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Green, W. D. K. (1996). The thin-plate spline and images with curving features. In K. V. Mardia, C. A. Gill, & I. L.
Dryden (Eds.), Image fusion and shape variability (pp. 79 87). Leeds: University of Leeds Press.
Myers, P., Lundrigan, B. L., Gillespie, B. W., & Zelditch, M. L. (1996). Phenotypic plasticity in skull and dental
morphology in the prairie deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii). Journal of Morphology, 229, 229 237.
Rohlf, F. J., & Bookstein, F. L. (2003). Computing the uniform component of shape variation. Systematic Biology,
52,66 69.
Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. E. (1990). Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of land-
marks. Systematic Zoology, 39,40 59.
Sheets, H. D., Covino, K. M., Panasiewicz, J. M., & Morris, S. R. (2006). Comparison of geometric morphometric
outline methods in the discrimination of age-related differences in feather shape. Frontiers in Zoology, 3, 15.
Sheets, H. D., Kim, K., & Mitchell, C. E. (2004). A combined landmark and outline-based approach to ontogenetic
shape change in the Ordovician trilobite Triarthrus becki. In A. M. T. Elewa (Ed.), Morphometrics: Applications in
biology and paleontology (pp. 67 82). New York: Springer.
Slice, D. E., Bookstein, F. L., Marcus, L. F., & Rohlf, F. J. (1996). A glossary for geometric morphometrics. In L. F.
Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, & D. E. Slice (Eds.), Advances in morphometrics (pp. 531 551). New
York: Plenum.
Thompson, D. A. W. (1992). On growth and form: The complete revised edition (2nd ed.). New York: Dover reprint
of 1942.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search