The zygomatic arch is morphologically complex, providing a key interface between the viscerocranium and neurocranium. It also serves as an attachment site for masticatory muscles, thereby linking it to the feeding apparatus. Though morphological variation related to differential loading is well known for many craniomandibular elements, the adaptive osteogenic response of the zygomatic arch remains to be investigated. Here, experimental data are presented that address the naturalistic influence of masticatory loading on the postweaning development of the zygoma and other cranial elements. Given the similarity of bone-strain levels among the zygoma and maxillomandibular elements, a rabbit and pig model were used to test the hypothesis that variation in cortical bone formation and biomineralization along the zygomatic arch and masticatory structures are linked to increased stresses. It was also hypothesized that neurocranial structures would be minimally affected by varying loads. Rabbits and pigs were raised for 48 weeks and 8 weeks, respectively. In both experimental models, CT analyses indicated that elevated masticatory loading did not induce differences in cortical bone thickness of the zygomatic arch, though biomineralization was positively affected. Hypotheses were supported regarding bone formation for maxillomandibular and neurocranial elements. Varying osteogenic responses in the arch suggests that skeletal adaptation, and corresponding variation in performance, may reside differentially at one level of bony architecture. Thus, it is possible that phenotypic diversity in the mammalian zygoma is due more singularly to natural selection (vs. plasticity). These findings underscore the complexity of the zygomatic arch and, more generally, determinants of skull form.
Foods are rarely consumed on their own. Food oral processing behavior and sensory perception of composite foods varying in properties were investigated in this study.
Traditionally, the study of metric skeletal asymmetry has relied largely on univariate analyses, utilizing ratio transformations when the goal is comparing asymmetries in skeletal elements or populations of dissimilar dimensions. Under this approach, raw asymmetries are divided by a size marker, such as a bilateral average, in an attempt to produce size-free asymmetry indices. Henceforth, this will be referred to as "controlling for size" (see Smith: Curr Anthropol 46 (2005) 249-273). Ratios obtained in this manner often require further transformations to interpret the meaning and sources of asymmetry. This model frequently ignores the fundamental assumption of ratios: the relationship between the variables entered in the ratio must be isometric. Violations of this assumption can obscure existing asymmetries and render spurious results. In this study, we examined the performance of the classic indices in detecting and portraying the asymmetry patterns in four human appendicular bones and explored potential methodological alternatives. Examination of the ratio model revealed that it does not fulfill its intended goals in the bones examined, as the numerator and denominator are independent in all cases. The ratios also introduced strong biases in the comparisons between different elements and variables, generating spurious asymmetry patterns. Multivariate analyses strongly suggest that any transformation to control for overall size or variable range must be conducted before, rather than after, calculating the asymmetries. A combination of exploratory multivariate techniques, such as Principal Components Analysis, and confirmatory linear methods, such as regression and analysis of covariance, appear as a promising and powerful alternative to the use of ratios.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.