Landmark-Based Morphometrics of the Normal Adult Brain Using MRI

Free, S. L.; O’Higgins, P.; Maudgil, David; Dryden, Ian L.; Lemieux, Louis; Fish, D. R.; Shorvon, Simon

doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0748

Cited by 37 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, with a few notable exceptions [10,11], these methodologies have rarely been used in neuroscience. However, the application of these techniques in comparative neuroscience holds tremendous potential for several reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased morphological asymmetry, evolvability and plasticity in human brain evolution

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of hominin brain evolution relies mostly on evaluation of the endocranial morphology of fossil skulls. However, only some general features of external brain morphology are evident from endocasts, and many anatomical details can be difficult or impossible to examine. In this study, we use geometric morphometric techniques to evaluate inter-and intraspecific differences in cerebral morphology in a sample of in vivo magnetic resonance imaging scans of chimpanzees and humans, with special emphasis on the study of asymmetric variation. Our study reveals that chimpanzee -human differences in cerebral morphology are mainly symmetric; by contrast, there is continuity in asymmetric variation between species, with humans showing an increased range of variation. Moreover, asymmetric variation does not appear to be the result of allometric scaling at intraspecific levels, whereas symmetric changes exhibit very slight allometric effects within each species. Our results emphasize two key properties of brain evolution in the hominine clade: first, evolution of chimpanzee and human brains (and probably their last common ancestor and related species) is not strongly morphologically constrained, thus making their brains highly evolvable and responsive to selective pressures; second, chimpanzee and, especially, human brains show high levels of fluctuating asymmetry indicative of pronounced developmental plasticity. We infer that these two characteristics can have a role in human cognitive evolution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased morphological asymmetry, evolvability and plasticity in human brain evolution

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[Fischl and Dale, 2000;Fischl et al, 1999a;Kennedy et al, 1989], shape (parameterization, deformation, etc.) [Davatzikos and Bryan, 1996;DeQuardo et al, 1999;Free et al, 2001;Hogan et al, 2000;Kovacs et al, 1998;McInerney and Terzopoulos, 1996;Thompson and Toga, 1996], anatomic location (relative to a specific coordinate system) [Fischl et al, 1999a;1999b;Talairach et al, 1967;Talairach and Tournoux, 1988;Thompson et al, 1997], and composition characteristics (parameter distributions) [Rosas et al, 2002]. See [Kennedy et al, 2002] for a more comprehensive exposition on these classes of descriptors.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

MRI‐based morphometric analysis of typical and atypical brain development

Kennedy

Haselgrove

McInerney

2003

Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neuroinformatics landscape in which human brain morphometry occurs has advanced dramatically over the past few years. Rapid advancement in image acquisition methods, image analysis tools and interpretation of morphometric results make the study of in vivo anatomic analysis both challenging and rewarding. This has revolutionized our expectations for current and future diagnostic and investigative work with the developing brain. This paper will briefly cover the methods of morphometric analysis that available for neuroanatomic analysis, and tour some sample results from a prototype retrospective database of neuroanatomic volumetric information. From these observations, issues regarding the anatomic variability of developmental maturation of neuroanatomic structures in both typically and atypically developing populations can be discussed.

show abstract

“…It is apparent that only a limited number of anatomical regions and organs satisfy all these requisites, and it is easy to understand why these methods have been mostly employed to analyze cranial morphology (e.g., Lieberman et al, 2002;Zollikofer and Ponce de León, 2002;Bookstein et al, 2003). Landmark methods were soon also applied to neuroanatomy (Free et al, 2001) and especially to paleoneurology (Bruner et al, 2003;Bruner, 2004), a field that relies on casts of the endocranial cavity in fossil specimens and extinct species to make inferences on brain evolution. Endocranial casts (named "endocasts") can't supply information concerning internal brain changes, or aspects other than morphology and macroanatomy, but are useful to evaluate brain size and shape, cortical folding patterns, general brain proportions, and brain-skull spatial relationships (Neubauer, 2014;Bruner, 2015Bruner, , 2017Ogihara et al, 2015).…”

Section: Shaping Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%