Background Geometric morphometrics is a powerful approach to capture and quantify morphological shape variation. Both 3D digitizer arms and structured light surface scanners are portable, easy to use, and relatively cheap, which makes these two capturing devices obvious choices for geometric morphometrics. While digitizer arms have been the “gold standard”, benefits of having full 3D models are manifold. We assessed the measurement error and investigate bias associated with the use of an open-source, high-resolution structured light scanner called SeeMaLab against the popular Microscribe 3D digitizer arm. Methodology The analyses were based on 22 grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) skulls. 31 fixed anatomical landmarks were annotated both directly using a Microscribe 3D digitizer and on reconstructed 3D digital models created from structured light surface scans. Each skull was scanned twice. Two operators annotated the landmarks, each twice on all the skulls and 3D models, allowing for the investigation of multiple sources of measurement error. We performed multiple Procrustes ANOVAs to compare the two devices in terms of within- and between-operator error, to quantify the measurement error induced by device, to compare between-device error with other sources of variation, and to assess the level of scanning-related error. We investigated the presence of general shape bias due to device and operator. Results Similar precision was obtained with both devices. If landmarks that were identified as less clearly defined and thus harder to place were omitted, the scanner pipeline would achieve higher precision than the digitizer. Between-operator error was biased and seemed to be smaller when using the scanner pipeline. There were systematic differences between devices, which was mainly driven by landmarks less clearly defined. The factors device, operator and landmark replica were all statistically significant and of similar size, but were minor sources of total shape variation, compared to the biological variation among grey seal skulls. The scanning-related error was small compared to all other error sources. Conclusions As the scanner showed precision similar to the digitizer, a scanner should be used if the advantages of obtaining detailed 3D models of a specimen are desired. To obtain high precision, a pre-study should be conducted to identify difficult landmarks. Due to the observed bias, data from different devices and/or operators should not be combined when the expected biological variation is small, without testing the landmarks for repeatability across platforms and operators. For any study necessitating the combination of landmark measurements from different operators, the scanner pipeline will be better suited. The small scanning-related error indicates that by following the same scanning protocol, different operators can be involved in the scanning process without introducing significant error.

No abstract

To study the shape of objects using geometric morphometrics, landmarks are oftentimes collected digitally from a 3D scanned model. The expert may annotate landmarks using software that visualizes the 3D model on a flat screen, and interaction is achieved with a mouse and a keyboard. However, landmark annotation of a 3D model on a 2D display is a tedious process and potentially introduces error due to the perception and interaction limitations of the flat interface. In addition, digital landmark placement can be more time-consuming than direct annotation on the physical object using a tactile digitizer arm. Since virtual reality (VR) is designed to more closely resemble the real world, we present a VR prototype for annotating landmarks on 3D models. We study the impact of VR on annotation performance by comparing our VR prototype to Stratovan Checkpoint, a commonly used commercial desktop software. We use an experimental setup, where four operators placed six landmarks on six grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) skulls in six trials for both systems. This enables us to investigate multiple sources of measurement error. We analyse both for the configuration and for single landmarks. Our analysis shows that annotation in VR is a promising alternative to desktop annotation. We find that annotation precision is comparable between the two systems, with VR being significantly more precise for one of the landmarks. We do not find evidence that annotation in VR is faster than on the desktop, but it is accurate.