Landmark Typology in Applied Morphometrics Studies: What's the Point?

Abstract

Landmarks are the hallmark of biological shape analysis as discrete anatomical points of correspondence. Various systems have been developed for their classification. In the most widely used system, developed by Bookstein in the 1990s, landmarks are divided into three distinct types based on their anatomical locations and biological significance. As Bookstein and others have argued that different landmark types possess different qualities, e.g., that Type 3 landmarks contain deficient information about shape variation and are less reliably measured, researchers began using landmark types as justification for selecting or avoiding particular landmarks for measurement or analysis. Here, we demonstrate considerable variation in landmark classifications among 17 studies using geometric morphometrics (GM), due to disagreement in the application of both Bookstein's landmark typology and individual landmark definitions. A review of the literature furthermore shows little correlation between landmark type and measurement reproducibility, especially when factors such as differences in measurement tools (calipers, digitizer, or computer software) and data sources (dry crania, 3D models, or 2D images) are considered. Although landmark typology is valuable when teaching biological shape analysis, we find that employing it in research design introduces confusion without providing useful information. Instead, researchers should choose landmark configurations based on their ability to test specific research hypotheses, and research papers should include justifications of landmark choices along with landmark definitions, details on landmark collection methods, and appropriate interobserver and intraobserver analyses. Hence, while the landmarks themselves are crucial for GM, we argue that their typology is of little use in applied studies. Anat Rec, 302:1144–1153, 2019. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Impact of Resolution and Texture of Laser Scanning Generated Three‐Dimensional Models on Landmark Identification

“…Digital morphometric analysis generally requires homologous reference landmarks, which can be identified with a high degree of precision and repeatability (Sholts et al, 2011). The selection of particular landmarks is one of the most important tasks in the design of morphometric studies (Wärmländer et al, 2018). Given that it is impossible to estimate the landmark position without error (Chen et al, 2004), it is important to know which landmarks are more prone to error and what effect different technologies have on their identification.…”

A computerized facial approximation method for archaic humans based on dense facial soft tissue thickness depths

“…As previous studies mentioned (Oxnard and O'Higgins 2009;Wärmländer et al 2019), the anatomical landmarks and semi-landmarks should be very carefully designed with regard to the research question. The purpose of this study is to approximate the overall shape of the facial appearance.…”

Anthropometric accuracy of three-dimensional average faces compared to conventional facial measurements

“…The additional use of pseudolandmarks allows more detailed measurements. However there is some debate on whether these pseudolandmarks are accurate, with some studies suggesting higher levels of inaccuracies 27 , 28 and others not 15 , 29 .…”