Geometric morphometrics in anthropology

The first step is to define your landmark set. Landmarks have to be anatomically recognizable and the same for all specimens in the study. Landmarks should be selected to properly capture the shape trying to be observed and capable of being replicated. The sample size should be roughly three times the amount of landmarks chosen and they must be recorded in the same order for every specimen.[1][4][5]

3D Cleaned Scanned Twirl

Semilandmarks, also called sliding landmarks, are used when the location of a landmark along a curvature might not be identifiable or repeatable.[4][5] Semilandmarks were created in order to take landmark based geometric morphometrics to the next step by capturing the shape of difficult areas such as smooth curves and surfaces.[5] In order to obtain a semilandmark, the curvature still has to start and end on definable landmarks, capture observed morphology, remain homologous across specimens in the same steps seen above for regular landmarks, be equal in number, and equally distant apart.[2][5] When this approach was first proposed, Bookstein suggested gaining semilandmarks by densely sampling landmarks along the surface in a mesh and slowly thinning out the landmarks until the desired curvature was obtained.[4] Newer landmark programs aid in the process but there are still some steps that must be taken in order for the semilandmarks to be the same across the whole sample. Semilandmarks are not placed on the actual curve or surface but on tangent vectors to the curve or tangent planes to the surface. The sliding of semilandmarks in new programs is performed by either selecting a specimen to be the model specimen for the rest of the specimens or using a computational sample mean from tangent vectors. Semilandmarks are automatically placed in most programs when the observer chooses a starting and ending point on definable landmarks and sliding the semilandmarks between them until the shape is captured. The semilandmarks are then mapped onto the rest of the specimens in the sample.[5] Since shape will differ between specimens, the observer has to manually go through and make sure the landmarks and semilandmarks are on the surface for the rest of the specimens. If not they must be moved to touch the surface, but this process still maintains the correct location. There is still room for improvement to these methods but this is the most consistent option at the moment. Once mapped on, these semilandmarks can be treated just like landmarks for statistical analysis.

This is a different approach to data collection than using landmarks and semilandmarks. In this approach, deformation grids are used to capture the morphological shape differences and changes. The general idea is that shape variations can be recorded from one specimen to another based on the distortion of a grid.[5] Bookstein proposed the use of a thin-plate spline (TPS) interpolation, which is a computed deformation grid that calculates a mapping function between two individuals that measures point differences.[4] Basically, the TPS interpolation has a template computed grid that is applied to specimens and the differences in shape can be read from the different deformations of the template.[4][5] The TPS can be used for both two- and three-dimensional data, but has proved less effective for visualizing three-dimensional differences, but it can easily be applied to the pixels of an image or volumetric data from CT or MRI scans.[5]

Landmark and semilandmark coordinates can be recorded on each specimen, but size, orientation, and position can vary for each of those specimens adding in variables that distract from the analysis of shape. This can be fixed by using superimposition, with generalized procrusted analysis (GPA) being the most common application. GPA removes the variation of size, orientation, and position by superimposing the landmarks in a common coordinate system.[2][6] The landmarks for all specimens are optimally translated, rotated, and scaled based on a least-squared estimation. The first step is translation and rotation to minimize the squared and summed differences (squared Procrustes distance) between landmarks on each specimen. Then the landmarks are individually scaled to the same unit Centroid size. Centroid size is the square root of the sum of squared distances of the landmarks in configuration to their mean location. The translation, rotation, and scaling bring the landmark configurations for all specimens into a common coordinate system so that the only differing variables are based on shape alone. The new superimposed landmarks can now be analyzed in multivariate statistical analyses.[6]

In general, principal components analysis is used to construct overarching variables that take the place of multiple correlated variables in order to reveal the underlying structure of the dataset. This is helpful in geometric morphometrics where a large set of landmarks can create correlated relationships that might be difficult to differentiate without reducing them in order to look at the overall variability in the data.[5][6] Reducing the number of variables is also necessary because the number of variables being observed and analyzed should not exceed sample size.[6] Principal component scores are computed through an eigendecomposition of a sample’s covariance matrix and rotates the data to preserve procrustes distances. In other words, a principal components analysis preserves the shape variables that were scaled, rotated, and translated during the generalize procrustes analysis. The resulting principal component scores project the shape variables onto low-dimensional space based on eigenvectors.[5] The scores can be plotted various ways to look at the shape variables, such as scatterplots. It is important to explore what shape variables are being observed to make sure the principal components being analyzed are pertinent to the questions being asked. Although the components might show shape variables not relevant to the question at hand, it is perfectly acceptable to leave those components out any further analysis for a specific project.[6]

Partial least squares is similar the principal components analysis in the fact that it reduces the number of variables being observed so patterns are more easily observed in the data, but it uses a linear regression model. PLS is an approach that looks at two or more sets of variables measured on the same specimens and extracts the linear combinations that best represent the pattern of covariance across the sets.[5][6] The linear combinations will optimally describe the covariances and provide a low-dimensional output to compare the different sets. With the highest shape variation covariance, mean shape, and the other shape covariances that exists among the sets, this approach is ideal for looking at the significance of group differences. PLS has been used a lot in studies that look at things such as sexual dimorphism, or other general morphological differences found at the population, subspecies, and species level.[6] It has also been used to look at functional, environmental, or behavioral differences that could influence the found shape covariance between sets[5]

Multiple or multivariate regression is an approach to look at the relationship between several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or influential variable. It is best used in geometric morphometrics when analyzing shape variables based on an external influence. For example, it can be used in studies with attached functional or environmental variables like age or the development over time in certain environments.[4][5][6] The multivariate regression of shape based on the logarithm of centroid size (square root of the sum of squared distances of landmarks) is ideal for allometric studies. Allometry is the analysis of shape based on the biological parameters of growth and size. This approach is not affected by the number of dependent shape variables or their covariance, so the results of regression coefficients can be seen as a deformation in shape.[5]

The human brain is unique from other species based on the size of the visual cortex, temporal lobe, and parietal cortex, and increased gyrification (folds of the brain). There have been many questions as to why these changes occurred and how they contributed to cognition and behavior, which are important questions in human evolution. Geometric morphometrics has been used to explore some of these questions using virtual endocasts (casts of the inside of the cranium) to gather information since brain tissue does not preserve in the fossil record. Geometric morphometrics can reveal small shape differences between brains such as differences between modern humans and Neanderthals whose brains were similar in size.[10] Neubauer and colleagues looked at the endocasts of chimpanzees and modern humans to observe brain growth using 3D landmarks and semilandmarks. They found that there is an early “globularization phase” in human brain development that shows expansion of the parietal and cerebellar areas, which does not occur in chimpanzees.[10][11] Gunz and colleagues extended the study further and found that the “globularization phase” does not occur in Neanderthals and instead Neanderthal brain growth is more similar to chimpanzees. This difference could point to some important changes in the human brain that led to different organization and cognitive functions[10][12][13]

There have been many debates on the relationships between Middle Pleistocene hominin crania from Eurasia and Africa because they display a mosaic of both primitive and derived traits. Studies on cranial morphology for these specimens have created arguments that Eurasian fossils from the Middle Pleistocene are a transition between Homo erectus and later hominins like Neanderthals and modern humans. However, there are two sides to the argument with one side saying that the European and African fossils are from a single taxon while others say that the Neanderthal lineage should be included. Harvati and colleagues decided to attempt to quantify the craniofacial features of Neanderthals and European Middle Pleistocene fossils using 3D landmarks to try to add to the debate. They found that some features were more Neanderthal like while others were primitive and likely from the Middle Pleistocene African hominins, so the argument could still go either way.[10][14] Freidline and colleagues further added to the debate by looking at both adult and subadult crania of modern and Pleistocene hominins using 3D landmarks and semilandmarks. They found similarities in facial morphology between Middle Pleistocene fossils from Europe and Africa and a divide in facial morphology during the Pleistocene based on time period. The study also found that some characteristics separating Neanderthals from Middle Pleistocene hominins, like the size of the nasal aperture and degree of midfacial prognathism, might be due to allometric differences[10][15]

Crania can be used to classify ancestry and sex to aid in forensic contexts such as crime scenes and mass fatalities. In 2010, Ross and colleagues were provided federal funds by the U.S. Department of Justice to compile data for population specific classification criteria using geometric morphometrics. Their aim was to create an extensive population database from 3D landmarks on human crania, to develop and validate population specific procedures for classification of unknown individuals, and develop software to use in forensic identification. They placed 3D landmarks on 75 craniofacial landmarks from European, African, and Hispanic populations of about 1000 individuals with a Microscribe digitizer. The software they developed, called 3D-ID, can classify unknown individuals into probable sex and ancestry, and allows for fragmentary and damaged specimens to be used.[16] A copy of the full manuscript can be found here: Geometric Morphometric Tools for the Classification of Human Skulls

Geometric morphometrics can also be used to capture the slight shape variations found in postcranial bones of the human body such as os coxae. Bierry and colleagues used 3D CT reconstructions of modern adult pelvic bones for 104 individuals to look at the shape of the obturator foramen. After a normalization technique to take out the factor of size, they outlined the obturator foramen with landmarks and semilandmarks to capture its shape. They chose the obturator foramen because it tends to be oval in males and triangular in females. The results show a classification accuracy of 88.5% for males and 80.8% for females using a Discriminant Fourier Analysis.[17] Another study done by Gonzalez and colleagues used geometric morphometrics to capture the complete shape of the ilium and ischiopubic ramus. They placed landmarks and semilandmarks on 2D photographic images of 121 left pelvic bones from a collection of undocumented skeletons at the Museu Anthropológico de Coimbra in Portugal. Since the pelvic bones were of unknown origin, they used a K-means Cluster Analysis to determine a sex category before performing a Discriminant Function analysis. The results had a classification accuracy for the greater sciatic notch of 90.9% and the ischiopubic ramus at 93.4 to 90.1%[18]

In archaeology, Geometric morphometrics are used to examine the shape variations or standardization of artifacts to answer questions about typological and technological changes. Most applications are for stone tools to measure variations in morphology between different assemblage groups to understand their functions.[19][20][21][22][23] Some applications to pottery shape is to identify the level of standardization to explore ceramic production and its implication about social organization.[24][25][26]