Euclidean distance matrix analysis: a coordinate-free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data.

For problems of classification and comparison in biological research, the primary focus is on the similarity of forms. A biological form can be conveniently defined as consisting of size and shape. Several approaches for comparing biological shapes using landmark data are available. Lele (1991a) critically discusses these approaches and proposes a new method based on the Euclidean distance matrix representation of the form of an object. The purpose of this paper is to extend this new methodology to the comparison of groups of objects. We develop the statistical versions of various concepts introduced by Lele (1991a) and use them for developing statistical procedures for testing the hypothesis of shape difference between biological forms. We illustrate the use of this method by studying morphological differences between normal children and those affected with Crouzon and Apert syndromes and craniofacial sexual dimorphism in Cebus apella.

[1]  S. Kullback,et al.  Some Aspects of Multivariate Analysis. , 1958 .

[2]  S. Pruzansky,et al.  Time: the fourth dimension in syndrome analysis applied to craniofacial malformations. , 1977, Birth defects original article series.

[3]  J L Lewis,et al.  A nonhomogeneous anthropometric scaling method based on finite element principles. , 1980, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  S. Kreiborg,et al.  Craniofacial growth in premature craniofacial synostosis. , 1981, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[5]  L. V. Van Valen,et al.  Homology and causes , 1982, Journal of morphology.

[6]  B. Efron,et al.  The Jackknife: The Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. , 1983 .

[7]  F. Bookstein Size and Shape Spaces for Landmark Data in Two Dimensions , 1986 .

[8]  Joan T. Richtsmeier,et al.  Finite-Element Scaling Applied to Sexual Dimorphism in Rhesus Macaque (Macaca Mulatta) Facial Growth , 1986 .

[9]  M. Vitéz Facial effects of fetal alcohol exposure: assessment by photographs and morphometric analysis. , 1987, American journal of medical genetics.

[10]  J T Richtsmeier,et al.  Comparative study of normal, Crouzon, and Apert craniofacial morphology using finite element scaling analysis. , 1987, American journal of physical anthropology.

[11]  B. Efron The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans , 1987 .

[12]  Joseph P. Romano A Bootstrap Revival of Some Nonparametric Distance Tests , 1988 .

[13]  F. Bookstein [A Survey of the Statistical Theory of Shape]: Comment , 1989 .

[14]  Joseph P. Romano Bootstrap and randomization tests of some nonparametric hypotheses , 1989 .

[15]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF HOMOLOGY , 1989 .

[16]  J T Richtsmeier,et al.  Analysis of craniofacial growth in Crouzon syndrome using landmark data. , 1990, Journal of craniofacial genetics and developmental biology.

[17]  Joan T. Richtsmeier,et al.  Statistical Models in Morphometrics: Are they Realistic? , 1990 .

[18]  S. Lele,et al.  Some comments on coordinate-free and scale-invariant methods in morphometrics. , 1991, American journal of physical anthropology.

[19]  J. Richtsmeier,et al.  Morphometric analysis of craniofacial growth in Cebus apella. , 1991, American journal of physical anthropology.

[20]  C. Goodall Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape , 1991 .

[21]  S Lele,et al.  On comparing biological shapes: detection of influential landmarks. , 1992, American journal of physical anthropology.

[22]  J T Richtsmeier,et al.  Cranial growth in the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus): a quantitative analysis using three dimensional coordinate data. , 1992, American journal of physical anthropology.