Limits...
Integration, Disintegration, and Self-Similarity: Characterizing the Scales of Shape Variation in Landmark Data.

Bookstein FL - Evol Biol (2015)

Bottom Line: Covariance analyses of interpoint distances, such as the Olson-Miller factor approach of the 1950's, cannot validly be extended to handle the spatial structure of complete morphometric descriptions; neither can analyses of shape coordinates that ignore the mean form.The paper begins with a seemingly innocent toy example, uncovers an unexpected invariance as an example of the general manipulation proposed, then applies the new modeling tactic to three data sets from the existing morphometric literature.Conclusions follow regarding findings and methodology alike.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.

ABSTRACT

The biologist examining samples of multicellular organisms in anatomical detail must already have an intuitive concept of morphological integration. But quantifying that intuition has always been fraught with difficulties and paradoxes, especially for the anatomically labelled Cartesian coordinate data that drive today's toolkits of geometric morphometrics. Covariance analyses of interpoint distances, such as the Olson-Miller factor approach of the 1950's, cannot validly be extended to handle the spatial structure of complete morphometric descriptions; neither can analyses of shape coordinates that ignore the mean form. This paper introduces a formal parametric quantification of integration by analogy with how time series are approached in modern paleobiology. Over there, a finding of trend falls under one tail of a distribution for which stasis comprises the other tail. The hypothesis separating these two classes of finding is the random walks, which are self-similar, meaning that they show no interpretable structure at any temporal scale. Trend and stasis are the two contrasting ways of deviating from this . The present manuscript introduces an analogous maneuver for the spatial aspects of ontogenetic or phylogenetic organismal studies: a subspace within the space of shape covariance structures for which the standard isotropic (Procrustes) model lies at one extreme of a characteristic parameter and the strongest growth-gradient models at the other. In-between lies the suggested new construct, the spatially self-similar processes that can be generated within the standard morphometric toolkit by a startlingly simple algebraic manipulation of partial warp scores. In this view, integration and "disintegration" as in the Procrustes model are two modes of organismal variation according to which morphometric data can deviate from this common , which, as in the temporal domain, is formally featureless, incapable of supporting any summary beyond a single parameter for amplitude. In practice the classification can proceed by examining the regression coefficient for log partial warp variance against log bending energy in the standard thin-plate spline setup. The self-similarity model, for which the regression slope is precisely [Formula: see text] corresponds well to the background against which the evolutionist's or systematist's a-priori notion of "local shape features" can be delineated. Integration as detected by the regression slope can be visualized by the first relative intrinsic warp (first relative eigenvector of the nonaffine part of a shape coordinate configuration with respect to bending energy) and may be summarized by the corresponding quadratic growth gradient. The paper begins with a seemingly innocent toy example, uncovers an unexpected invariance as an example of the general manipulation proposed, then applies the new modeling tactic to three data sets from the existing morphometric literature. Conclusions follow regarding findings and methodology alike.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The large-scale quadratic (integrated) trend is indistinguishable from the deflated relative intrinsic warp in Fig. 13, while the first principal component of the nonaffine shape coordinates is indistinguishable from the combination of this component with a local effect at IPP, the same pattern as the reinflated first RIW from Fig. 13. The grid on the left has the same second derivative at every point, and hence could be considered as integrated as any uniform transformation (for which it is the first derivative that is similarly unchanging)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4642606&req=5

Fig15: The large-scale quadratic (integrated) trend is indistinguishable from the deflated relative intrinsic warp in Fig. 13, while the first principal component of the nonaffine shape coordinates is indistinguishable from the combination of this component with a local effect at IPP, the same pattern as the reinflated first RIW from Fig. 13. The grid on the left has the same second derivative at every point, and hence could be considered as integrated as any uniform transformation (for which it is the first derivative that is similarly unchanging)

Mentions: The likeliest place to find integration would be a region characterized, in Melvin Moss’s felicitous phrase, as a “functional matrix,” a coherent anatomical domain balancing diverse functional criteria that persist over a growth trajectory. One such data set is the octagon of landmarks circumscribing the developing brain in the midplanes of 21 rodents (of which the data from 18 are used here) that were radiographed cephalometrically at ages 7, 14, 21, 30, 40, 60, 90, and 150 days after birth by the Danish morphologist Henning Vilmann; the landmarks were digitized by Moss himself. These data were first used to illustrate morphometric techniques in Bookstein (1984) and were listed in extenso as an Appendix to Bookstein (1991). For a diagram of this landmark scheme, eight points on 21 growing rodent skulls at eight ages, see Bookstein (2014), Figure 6.8. Analysis by the principles of this paper is the concern of Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 here. For a different approach to this same data set, centered on the within-age covariances instead of the growth trajectories, see Bookstein and Mitteroecker (2014).Fig. 10


Integration, Disintegration, and Self-Similarity: Characterizing the Scales of Shape Variation in Landmark Data.

Bookstein FL - Evol Biol (2015)

The large-scale quadratic (integrated) trend is indistinguishable from the deflated relative intrinsic warp in Fig. 13, while the first principal component of the nonaffine shape coordinates is indistinguishable from the combination of this component with a local effect at IPP, the same pattern as the reinflated first RIW from Fig. 13. The grid on the left has the same second derivative at every point, and hence could be considered as integrated as any uniform transformation (for which it is the first derivative that is similarly unchanging)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4642606&req=5

Fig15: The large-scale quadratic (integrated) trend is indistinguishable from the deflated relative intrinsic warp in Fig. 13, while the first principal component of the nonaffine shape coordinates is indistinguishable from the combination of this component with a local effect at IPP, the same pattern as the reinflated first RIW from Fig. 13. The grid on the left has the same second derivative at every point, and hence could be considered as integrated as any uniform transformation (for which it is the first derivative that is similarly unchanging)
Mentions: The likeliest place to find integration would be a region characterized, in Melvin Moss’s felicitous phrase, as a “functional matrix,” a coherent anatomical domain balancing diverse functional criteria that persist over a growth trajectory. One such data set is the octagon of landmarks circumscribing the developing brain in the midplanes of 21 rodents (of which the data from 18 are used here) that were radiographed cephalometrically at ages 7, 14, 21, 30, 40, 60, 90, and 150 days after birth by the Danish morphologist Henning Vilmann; the landmarks were digitized by Moss himself. These data were first used to illustrate morphometric techniques in Bookstein (1984) and were listed in extenso as an Appendix to Bookstein (1991). For a diagram of this landmark scheme, eight points on 21 growing rodent skulls at eight ages, see Bookstein (2014), Figure 6.8. Analysis by the principles of this paper is the concern of Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 here. For a different approach to this same data set, centered on the within-age covariances instead of the growth trajectories, see Bookstein and Mitteroecker (2014).Fig. 10

Bottom Line: Covariance analyses of interpoint distances, such as the Olson-Miller factor approach of the 1950's, cannot validly be extended to handle the spatial structure of complete morphometric descriptions; neither can analyses of shape coordinates that ignore the mean form.The paper begins with a seemingly innocent toy example, uncovers an unexpected invariance as an example of the general manipulation proposed, then applies the new modeling tactic to three data sets from the existing morphometric literature.Conclusions follow regarding findings and methodology alike.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.

ABSTRACT

The biologist examining samples of multicellular organisms in anatomical detail must already have an intuitive concept of morphological integration. But quantifying that intuition has always been fraught with difficulties and paradoxes, especially for the anatomically labelled Cartesian coordinate data that drive today's toolkits of geometric morphometrics. Covariance analyses of interpoint distances, such as the Olson-Miller factor approach of the 1950's, cannot validly be extended to handle the spatial structure of complete morphometric descriptions; neither can analyses of shape coordinates that ignore the mean form. This paper introduces a formal parametric quantification of integration by analogy with how time series are approached in modern paleobiology. Over there, a finding of trend falls under one tail of a distribution for which stasis comprises the other tail. The hypothesis separating these two classes of finding is the random walks, which are self-similar, meaning that they show no interpretable structure at any temporal scale. Trend and stasis are the two contrasting ways of deviating from this . The present manuscript introduces an analogous maneuver for the spatial aspects of ontogenetic or phylogenetic organismal studies: a subspace within the space of shape covariance structures for which the standard isotropic (Procrustes) model lies at one extreme of a characteristic parameter and the strongest growth-gradient models at the other. In-between lies the suggested new construct, the spatially self-similar processes that can be generated within the standard morphometric toolkit by a startlingly simple algebraic manipulation of partial warp scores. In this view, integration and "disintegration" as in the Procrustes model are two modes of organismal variation according to which morphometric data can deviate from this common , which, as in the temporal domain, is formally featureless, incapable of supporting any summary beyond a single parameter for amplitude. In practice the classification can proceed by examining the regression coefficient for log partial warp variance against log bending energy in the standard thin-plate spline setup. The self-similarity model, for which the regression slope is precisely [Formula: see text] corresponds well to the background against which the evolutionist's or systematist's a-priori notion of "local shape features" can be delineated. Integration as detected by the regression slope can be visualized by the first relative intrinsic warp (first relative eigenvector of the nonaffine part of a shape coordinate configuration with respect to bending energy) and may be summarized by the corresponding quadratic growth gradient. The paper begins with a seemingly innocent toy example, uncovers an unexpected invariance as an example of the general manipulation proposed, then applies the new modeling tactic to three data sets from the existing morphometric literature. Conclusions follow regarding findings and methodology alike.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus