Virtual anthropology meets biomechanics.

A meeting in Vienna in October 2010 brought together researchers using Virtual Anthropology (VA) and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) in order to explore the benefits and problems facing a collaboration between the two fields. FEA is used to test mechanical hypotheses in functional anatomy and VA complements and augments this process by virtue of its tools for acquiring data, for segmenting and preparing virtual specimens, and for generating reconstructions and artificial forms. This represents a critical methodological advance because geometry is one of the crucial inputs of FEA and is often the variable of interest in functional anatomy. However, we currently lack tools that quantitatively relate differences in geometry to differences in stress and strain, or that evaluate the impact on FEA of variation within and between biological samples. Thus, when comparing models of different geometry, we do not currently obtain sufficiently informative answers to questions such as "How different are these models, and in what manner are they different? Are they different in some anatomical regions but not others?" New methodologies must be developed in order to maximize the potential of FEA to address questions in comparative and evolutionary biology. In this paper we review these and other important issues that were raised during our Vienna meeting.

[1]  Gerhard W Weber,et al.  Principles for the virtual reconstruction of hominin crania. , 2009, Journal of human evolution.

[2]  A new OH5 reconstruction with an assessment of its uncertainty. , 2011, Journal of human evolution.

[3]  Elazar Uchupi,et al.  Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences: Volume 19 (1991), 484p. US $60.00 and Volume 20 (1992), 631 p. US $64.00 , 1993 .

[4]  David S Strait,et al.  Finite element analysis in functional morphology. , 2005, The anatomical record. Part A, Discoveries in molecular, cellular, and evolutionary biology.

[5]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Virtual Anthropology: A guide to a new interdisciplinary field , 2011 .

[6]  I. Grosse,et al.  Requirements for comparing the performance of finite element models of biological structures. , 2009, Journal of theoretical biology.

[7]  E. Rayfield Finite Element Analysis and Understanding the Biomechanics and Evolution of Living and Fossil Organisms , 2007 .

[8]  Emily J Rayfield,et al.  Patterns of morphospace occupation and mechanical performance in extant crocodilian skulls: A combined geometric morphometric and finite element modeling approach , 2008, Journal of morphology.

[9]  B. Richmond,et al.  The Structural Rigidity of the Cranium of Australopithecus africanus: Implications for Diet, Dietary Adaptations, and the Allometry of Feeding Biomechanics , 2010, Anatomical record.

[10]  Jia Liu,et al.  Combining geometric morphometrics and functional simulation: an emerging toolkit for virtual functional analyses , 2011, Journal of anatomy.

[11]  Ian R. Grosse,et al.  The feeding biomechanics and dietary ecology of Australopithecus africanus , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  O Panagiotopoulou,et al.  Finite element analysis (FEA): Applying an engineering method to functional morphology in anthropology and human biology , 2009, Annals of human biology.

[13]  S. Wroe,et al.  The craniomandibular mechanics of being human , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  Neil Curtis,et al.  Craniofacial biomechanics: an overview of recent multibody modelling studies , 2011, Journal of anatomy.