A Comparison of Semilandmarking Approaches in the Visualisation of Shape Differences

Normal human craniofacial growth and development from 0 to 4 years

Knowledge of human craniofacial growth (increase in size) and development (change in shape) is important in the clinical treatment of a range of conditions that affects it. This study uses an extensive collection of clinical CT scans to investigate craniofacial growth and development over the first 48 months of life, detail how the cranium changes in form (size and shape) in each sex and how these changes are associated with the growth and development of various soft tissues such as the brain, eyes and tongue and the expansion of the nasal cavity. This is achieved through multivariate analyses of cranial form based on 3D landmarks and semi-landmarks and by analyses of linear dimensions, and cranial volumes. The results highlight accelerations and decelerations in cranial form changes throughout early childhood. They show that from 0 to 12 months, the cranium undergoes greater changes in form than from 12 to 48 months. However, in terms of the development of overall cranial shape, there is no significant sexual dimorphism in the age range considered in this study. In consequence a single model of human craniofacial growth and development is presented for future studies to examine the physio-mechanical interactions of the craniofacial growth.

A Comparison of Semilandmarking Approaches in the Analysis of Size and Shape

Often, few landmarks can be reliably identified in analyses of form variation and covariation. Thus, ‘semilandmarking’ algorithms have increasingly been applied to surfaces and curves. However, the locations of semilandmarks depend on the investigator’s choice of algorithm and their density. In consequence, to the extent that different semilandmarking approaches and densities result in different locations of semilandmarks, they can be expected to yield different results concerning patterns of variation and co-variation. The extent of such differences due to methodology is, as yet, unclear and often ignored. In this study, the performance of three landmark-driven semilandmarking approaches is assessed, using two different surface mesh datasets (ape crania and human heads) with different degrees of variation and complexity, by comparing the results of morphometric analyses. These approaches produce different semilandmark locations, which, in turn, lead to differences in statistical results, although the non-rigid semilandmarking approaches are consistent. Morphometric analyses using semilandmarks must be interpreted with due caution, recognising that error is inevitable and that results are approximations. Further work is needed to investigate the effects of using different landmark and semilandmark templates and to understand the limitations and advantages of different semilandmarking approaches.

A Comparison of Semilandmarking Approaches in the Visualisation of Shape Differences

In landmark-based analyses of size and shape variation and covariation among biological structures, regions lacking clearly identifiable homologous landmarks are commonly described by semilandmarks. Different algorithms may be used to apply semilandmarks, but little is known about the consequences of analytical results. Here, we assess how different approaches and semilandmarking densities affect the estimates and visualisations of mean and allometrically scaled surfaces. The performance of three landmark-driven semilandmarking approaches is assessed using two different surface mesh datasets with different degrees of variation and complexity: adult human head and ape cranial surfaces. Surfaces fitted to estimates of the mean and allometrically scaled landmark and semilandmark configurations arising from geometric morphometric analyses of these datasets are compared between semilandmarking approaches and different densities, as well as with those from warping to landmarks alone. We find that estimates of surface mesh shape (i.e., after re-semilandmarking and then re-warping) made with varying numbers of semilandmarks are generally consistent, while the warping of surfaces using landmarks alone yields surfaces that can be quite different to those based on semilandmarks, depending on landmark coverage and choice of template surface for warping. The extent to which these differences are important depends on the particular study context and aims.