Surfin’ endocasts: The good and the bad on brain form

Emiliano Bruner, Naomichi Ogihara

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Digital anatomy and computed morphometrics currently represent basic tools in anthropology, zoology, and paleontology. Despite the user-friendly interfaces of the programs, these methods require a robust expertise in statistics, biomedical imaging, and computer graphics. Geometrical modeling is aimed at normalizing shape variation as to compare forms within a shared reference space. As any other modeling approach, it can be used to test hypotheses or to investigate the structure of sample variation. In both cases, models refer to specific variables and parameters, and they follow numerical criteria that are based on algebraic and conventional rules. If models are interpreted too broadly and confused with the real anatomical elements, conclusions can be seriously biased. This risk can be particularly relevant when dealing with morphometric methods that do not use anatomical references, like sliding landmarks, surface analysis, or voxel-based morphometry. All these techniques are largely employed in craniology, paleoneurology, and evolutionary neuroanatomy. Following these approaches, elements are analyzed as “objects” and not as “anatomical elements,” introducing noise and drawbacks due to the registration processes and to the absence of constraints associated with anatomical boundaries. Downsides can be avoided by interpreting geometric models as specific representations of a set of properties of the original anatomical systems and not as generalized effigy of biological elements.

Original languageEnglish
JournalPalaeontologia Electronica
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Jan 1

Fingerprint

brain
zoology
anthropology
morphometry
paleontology
anatomy
modeling
sliding
method
statistics
registration
analysis
programme
test
parameter

Keywords

  • Morphometrics
  • Paleoneurology
  • Shape analysis
  • Surface analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oceanography

Cite this

Surfin’ endocasts : The good and the bad on brain form. / Bruner, Emiliano; Ogihara, Naomichi.

In: Palaeontologia Electronica, Vol. 21, No. 1, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bruner, Emiliano ; Ogihara, Naomichi. / Surfin’ endocasts : The good and the bad on brain form. In: Palaeontologia Electronica. 2018 ; Vol. 21, No. 1.
@article{16c823eff1c346bcb370ffbaee001374,
title = "Surfin’ endocasts: The good and the bad on brain form",
abstract = "Digital anatomy and computed morphometrics currently represent basic tools in anthropology, zoology, and paleontology. Despite the user-friendly interfaces of the programs, these methods require a robust expertise in statistics, biomedical imaging, and computer graphics. Geometrical modeling is aimed at normalizing shape variation as to compare forms within a shared reference space. As any other modeling approach, it can be used to test hypotheses or to investigate the structure of sample variation. In both cases, models refer to specific variables and parameters, and they follow numerical criteria that are based on algebraic and conventional rules. If models are interpreted too broadly and confused with the real anatomical elements, conclusions can be seriously biased. This risk can be particularly relevant when dealing with morphometric methods that do not use anatomical references, like sliding landmarks, surface analysis, or voxel-based morphometry. All these techniques are largely employed in craniology, paleoneurology, and evolutionary neuroanatomy. Following these approaches, elements are analyzed as “objects” and not as “anatomical elements,” introducing noise and drawbacks due to the registration processes and to the absence of constraints associated with anatomical boundaries. Downsides can be avoided by interpreting geometric models as specific representations of a set of properties of the original anatomical systems and not as generalized effigy of biological elements.",
keywords = "Morphometrics, Paleoneurology, Shape analysis, Surface analysis",
author = "Emiliano Bruner and Naomichi Ogihara",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.26879/805",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
journal = "Palaeontologia Electronica",
issn = "1935-3952",
publisher = "Texas A & M University",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surfin’ endocasts

T2 - The good and the bad on brain form

AU - Bruner, Emiliano

AU - Ogihara, Naomichi

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Digital anatomy and computed morphometrics currently represent basic tools in anthropology, zoology, and paleontology. Despite the user-friendly interfaces of the programs, these methods require a robust expertise in statistics, biomedical imaging, and computer graphics. Geometrical modeling is aimed at normalizing shape variation as to compare forms within a shared reference space. As any other modeling approach, it can be used to test hypotheses or to investigate the structure of sample variation. In both cases, models refer to specific variables and parameters, and they follow numerical criteria that are based on algebraic and conventional rules. If models are interpreted too broadly and confused with the real anatomical elements, conclusions can be seriously biased. This risk can be particularly relevant when dealing with morphometric methods that do not use anatomical references, like sliding landmarks, surface analysis, or voxel-based morphometry. All these techniques are largely employed in craniology, paleoneurology, and evolutionary neuroanatomy. Following these approaches, elements are analyzed as “objects” and not as “anatomical elements,” introducing noise and drawbacks due to the registration processes and to the absence of constraints associated with anatomical boundaries. Downsides can be avoided by interpreting geometric models as specific representations of a set of properties of the original anatomical systems and not as generalized effigy of biological elements.

AB - Digital anatomy and computed morphometrics currently represent basic tools in anthropology, zoology, and paleontology. Despite the user-friendly interfaces of the programs, these methods require a robust expertise in statistics, biomedical imaging, and computer graphics. Geometrical modeling is aimed at normalizing shape variation as to compare forms within a shared reference space. As any other modeling approach, it can be used to test hypotheses or to investigate the structure of sample variation. In both cases, models refer to specific variables and parameters, and they follow numerical criteria that are based on algebraic and conventional rules. If models are interpreted too broadly and confused with the real anatomical elements, conclusions can be seriously biased. This risk can be particularly relevant when dealing with morphometric methods that do not use anatomical references, like sliding landmarks, surface analysis, or voxel-based morphometry. All these techniques are largely employed in craniology, paleoneurology, and evolutionary neuroanatomy. Following these approaches, elements are analyzed as “objects” and not as “anatomical elements,” introducing noise and drawbacks due to the registration processes and to the absence of constraints associated with anatomical boundaries. Downsides can be avoided by interpreting geometric models as specific representations of a set of properties of the original anatomical systems and not as generalized effigy of biological elements.

KW - Morphometrics

KW - Paleoneurology

KW - Shape analysis

KW - Surface analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044168050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044168050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.26879/805

DO - 10.26879/805

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85044168050

VL - 21

JO - Palaeontologia Electronica

JF - Palaeontologia Electronica

SN - 1935-3952

IS - 1

ER -