Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12136/2075
Item metadata
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBruner, Emiliano-
dc.contributor.authorBastir, Markus-
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-17T17:24:31Z-
dc.date.issued2009-
dc.identifier.citationI Iberian Symposium on Geometric Morphometrics, 2009, p. 33es_ES
dc.identifier.isbn978-84-613-3650-0-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12136/2075-
dc.descriptionComunicación presentada en: I Iberian Symposium on Geometric Morphometrics, 23-25 de julio 2009, Sabadell (Barcelona)es_ES
dc.description.abstractSince the earliest studies in morphometrics the geometric modelling of smooth surfaces and curves has represented a major challenge for anatomists and biostatisticians. Since the end of the 80’s geometric morphometrics supplied landmark-based methods able to support geo-metrical modelling using anatomical references, but scarcely effective when dealing with curves or outlines. Recent improvements have produced a toolkit using sliding semilandmarks which enables to combine outlines with landmarks in a non-arbitrary way. The introduction of the sliding techniques provided a basic tool to approach such diffcult task. However, the thorny algebra behind this issue, the theoretical constraints, the practical requirements, and the very user-friendly software interfaces, produced a heterogeneous framework of application which probably is hampering a full exploitation of these tools. Taking into account a case-study associated with human brain variation, here we present some comparative results between the common plain approach to outline by equidistant points (pseudolandmarks), and the two classic sliding semilandmark-techniques: minimisation of Procrustes distance and minimisa-tion of bending energy. It is clear that the structure of the morphospace is infuenced by the choice of methods. Two main points must be considered accordingly. First, the choice of a given sliding technique for each case-study should be carefully explained in terms of the relationship between the biological nature of the anatomical variation and the properties of the algebra involved. Second, possible differences represent bias only if the re-sulting morphospace is taken as “the reality”, and not as an interpretation (a model) of it.es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherInstitut Català de Paleontologiaes_ES
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPaleontologia i evolució. Memòria especial;3-
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.titleLandmarks can slide, brains can not: interpreting models of shape variationes_ES
dc.typePresentationes_ES
dc.typeOtheres_ES
dc.date.available2020-09-17T17:24:31Z-
Appears in Collections:Congresos, encuentros científicos y estancias de investigación

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.