Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:26:41.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considerations for Post-processing Parameters in Mixed-Method 3D Analyses

A Mesolithic Mandibular Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2021

Robert Z. Selden Jr. Open the ORCID record for Robert Z. Selden Jr. [Opens in a new window] ,
Lauren N. Butaric Open the ORCID record for Lauren N. Butaric [Opens in a new window] ,
Kersten Bergstrom Open the ORCID record for Kersten Bergstrom [Opens in a new window]  and
Dennis Van Gerven
Robert Z. Selden Jr.*
Affiliation:
Heritage Research Center and Department of Biology, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX, USA Cultural Heritage Department, Jean Monnet University, Saint-Étienne, France
Lauren N. Butaric
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA, USA
Kersten Bergstrom
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland, WA, USA
Dennis Van Gerven
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
*
([email protected], corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The production of three-dimensional (3D) digital meshes of surface and computed tomographic (CT) data has become widespread in morphometric analyses of anthropological and archaeological data. Given that processing methods are not standardized, this leaves questions regarding the comparability of processed and digitally curated 3D datasets. The goal of this study was to identify those processing parameters that result in the most consistent fit between CT-derived meshes and a 3D surface model of the same human mandible. Eight meshes, each using unique thresholding and smoothing parameters, were compared to assess whole-object deviations, deviations along curves, and deviations between specific anatomical features on the surface model when compared with the CT scans using a suite of comparison points. Based on calculated gap distances, the mesh that thresholded at “0” with an applied smoothing technique was found to deviate least from the surface model, although it is not the most biologically accurate. Results have implications for aggregated studies that employ multimodal 3D datasets, and caution is recommended for studies that enlist 3D data from websites and digital repositories, particularly if processing parameters are unknown or derived for studies with different research foci.

La producción de mallas digitales tridimensionales (3D) de superficie e información tomográfica computarizada (TC) se ha generalizado en los analisis morfométricos de datos antropológicos y arqueológicos. Dado que los métodos de procesamiento no están estandarizados quedan dudas sobre la comparabilidad de conjuntos de datos 3D procesados y curados digitalmente. El objetivo de este estudio fue identificar los parámetros de procesamiento que tienen la compatibilidad más consistente entre mallas derivadas de TC y un modelo de superficie 3D de la misma mandibula humana. Fueron comparadas ocho mallas cada una con parámetros únicos de umbralización y suavizado, para evaluar las desviaciones de todo el objeto, las desviaciones a lo largo de las curvas y las desviaciones entre características anatómicas específicas en el modelo de superficie, en comparación con cada una de las tomografías computarizadas utilizando un conjunto de puntos de comparación. Con base en las distancias de separación calculadas, aunque no las más precisas desde el punto de vista biológico, se encontró que la malla con umbral en “0” con una técnica de suavizado aplicada se desvía menos de la superficie modelo. Los resultados tienen implicaciones para los estudios agregados que emplean conjuntos de datos 3D multimodales y se recomienda precaución para los estudios que incluyen datos 3D de sitios web y repositorios digitales, especialmente si los parámetros de procesamiento son desconocidos o derivados de estudios con diferentes focos de investigación.

Keywords

archaeoinformaticscomputational archaeologygeometric morphometricsdigital humanitiesmuseum studiesarqueoinformáticaarqueología computacionalmorfometría geométricahumanidades digitalesestudios de museo
Type
Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , November 2021 , pp. 325 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Dean C., James Rohlf, F., and Slice, Dennis E. 2013 A Field Comes of Age: Geometric Morphometrics in the 21st Century. Hystrix: The Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24:7–14. DOI:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6283.Google Scholar
Algee-Hewitt, Bridget F. B., and Wheat, Amber D. 2016 The Reality of Virtual Anthropology: Comparing Digitizer and Laser Scan Data Collection Methods for the Quantitative Assessment of the Cranium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 160:148–155. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allison, Penelope 2008 Dealing with Legacy Data - An Introduction. Internet Archaeology 24. DOI:10.11141/ia.24.8.Google Scholar
Arbour, Jessica H., Brown, Caleb M., and Nakagawa, Shinichi 2014 Incomplete Specimens in Geometric Morphometric Analyses. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5:16–26. DOI:10.1111/2041-210x.12128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzeau, Antoine, Crevecoeur, Isabelle, Rougier, Hélène, Froment, Alain, Gilissen, Emmanuel, Grimaud-Hervé, Dominique, Mennecier, Philippe, and Semal, Patrick 2010 Applications of Imaging Methodologies to Paleoanthropology: Beneficial Results Relating to the Preservation, Management and Development of Collections. Comptes Rendus Palevol 9:265–275. DOI:10.1016/j.crpv.2010.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benazzi, Stefano, Stansfield, Ekarterina, Kullmer, Ottmar, Fiorenza, Luca, and Gruppioni, Giorgio 2009 Geometric Morphometric Methods for Bone Reconstruction: The Mandibular Condylar Process of Pico della Mirandola. The Anatomical Record (Hoboken) 292:1088–1097. DOI:10.1002/ar.20933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bookstein, Fred L. 1991 Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bookstein, Fred L. 1997 Landmark Methods for Forms without Landmarks: Localizing Group Differences in Outline Shape. Medical Image Analysis 1:225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, Fred, Schfer, Katrin, Prossinger, Hermann, Seidler, Horst, Fieder, Martin, Stringer, Chris, Weber, Gerhard W., et al. 1999 Comparing Frontal Cranial Profiles in Archaic and Modern Homo by Morphometric Analysis. The Anatomical Record 257:217–224. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0185(19991215)257:6<217::aid-ar7>3.0.co;2-w.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bookstein, Fred L., Slice, Dennis E., Gunz, Philipp, and Mitteroecker, Philipp 2004 Anthropology Takes Control of Morphometrics. Collegium Antropologicum 28:121–132.Google ScholarPubMed
Boyer, Doug M., Gunnell, Gregg F., Kaufman, Seth, and McGeary, Timothy M. 2017 MorphoSource: Archiving and Sharing 3-D Digital Specimen Data. Paleontological Society Papers 22:157–181. DOI:10.1017/scs.2017.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruno, Fabio, Bruno, Stefano, De Sensi, Giovanna, Luchi, Maria-Laura, Mancuso, Stefania, and Muzzupappa, Maurizio 2010 From 3D Reconstruction to Virtual Reality: A Complete Methodology for Digital Archaeological Exhibition. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11:42–49. DOI:10.1016/j.culher.2009.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budzik, Grzegorz, Burek, Jan, Bazan, Anna, and Turek, Paweł 2016 Analysis of the Accuracy of Reconstructed Two Teeth Models Manufactured Using the 3DP and FDM Technologies. Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 62. DOI:10.5545/sv-jme.2015.2699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butaric, Lauren N. 2015 Differential Scaling Patterns in Maxillary Sinus Volume and Nasal Cavity Breadth among Modern Humans. Anatomical Record 298:1710–1721. DOI:10.1002/ar.23182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chirchir, Habiba, Ruff, Christopher B., Junno, Juho-Anti, and Potts, Richard 2017 Low Trabecular Bone Density in Recent Sedentary Modern Humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 162:550–560. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.23138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, Mark N., and Colbert, Matthew W. 2007 Technical Note: CT Thresholding Protocols for Taking Measurements on Three-Dimensional Models. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133:723–725. DOI:10.1002/ ajpa.20583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Copes, Lynn E., and Kimbel, William H. 2016 Cranial Vault Thickness in Primates: Homo Erectus Does Not Have Uniquely Thick Vault Bones. Journal of Human Evolution 90:120–134. DOI:10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couette, Sébastien, and White, Jess 2010 3D Geometric Morphometrics and Missing-Data: Can Extant Taxa Give Clues for the Analysis of Fossil Primates? Comptes Rendus Palevol 9:423–433. DOI:10.1016/j.crpv.2010.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Thomas G., Rahman, Imran A., Lautenschlager, Stephan, Cunningham, John A., Asher, Robert J., Barrett, Paul M., Bates, Karl T., et al. 2017 Open Data and Digital Morphology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20170194. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2017.0194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglass, Mattjew, Kuhnel, Dennis, Magnani, Matthew, Hittner, Luke, Chodoronek, Michael, and Porter, Samantha 2017 Community Outreach, Digital Heritage and Private Collections: A Case Study from the North American Great Plains. World Archaeology 49:1–16. DOI:10.1080/00438243.2017.1309299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evgenikou, V., and Georgopoulos, A. 2015 Investigating 3D Reconstruction Methods for Small Artifacts. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-5/W4:101–108. DOI:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W4-101-2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourie, Zacharias, Damstra, Janalt, Gerrits, Peter O., and Ren, Yijin 2011 Evaluation of Anthropometric Accuracy and Reliability Using Different Three-Dimensional Scanning Systems. Forensic Science International 207:127–134. DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.09.018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, Daniel, Swift, Lauren, and Flavel, Ambika 2016 “Virtual Anthropology” and Radiographic Imaging in the Forensic Medical Sciences. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences 6:31–43. DOI:10.1016/j.ejfs.2016.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friess, Martin 2012 Scratching the Surface? The Use of Surface Scanning in Physical and Paleoanthropology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 90:7–31. DOI:10.4436/jass.90004.Google ScholarPubMed
Galland, Manon, Van Gerven, Denis P., Von Cramon-Taubadel, Noreen, and Pinhasi, Ron 2016 11,000 Years of Craniofacial and Mandibular Variation in Lower Nubia. Scientific Reports 6:31040. DOI:10.1038/srep31040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georgopoulos, A., Ionnidis, C., and Valanis, A. 2010 Assessing the Performance of a Structured Light Scanner. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 38:250–255.Google Scholar
Godinho, Ricardo M., and O'Higgins, Paul 2017 Virtual Reconstruction of Cranial Remains: The H. Heidelbergensis, Kabwe 1 Fossil. In Human Remains: Another Dimension: The Application of Imaging to the Study of Human Remains, 1st ed., edited by Errickson, David and Thompson, Tim, pp. 135–147. Academic Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Ddavid Lee, and Armelagos, George 1972 The Wadi Halfa Mesolithic Population. Research Report Number 11, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gunz, Philipp, and Mitteroecker, Philipp 2013 Semilandmarks: A Method for Quantifying Curves and Surfaces. Hystrix: The Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24:103–109. DOI:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6292.Google Scholar
Gunz, Philipp, Mitteroecker, Philipp, and Bookstein, Fred L. 2005 Semilandmarks in Three Dimensions. In Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology, edited by Slice, Dennis E., pp. 73–98. Plenum Publishers, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunz, Philipp, Mitteroecker, Philipp, Neubauer, Simon, Weber, Gerhard W., and Bookstein, Fred L. 2009 Principles for the Virtual Reconstruction of Hominin Crania. Journal of Human Evolution 57:48–62. DOI:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.04.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isler, Volkan, Wilson, Bradford, and Bajcsy, Ruzena 2006 Building a 3D Virtual Museum of Native American Baskets. Third International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization, and Transmission, pp. 954–961. DOI:10.1109/3dpvt.2006.38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, David, and Friess, Martin 2014 Technical Note: 3D from Standard Digital Photography of Human Crania: A Preliminary Assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 154:152–158. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koppe, Thomas, and Nagai, Hiroshi 1995 On the Morphology of the Maxillary Sinus Floor in Old World Monkeys: A Study Based on Three-Dimensional Reconstructions of CT Scans. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Dental Morphology, edited by Radlanski, Ralf Johannes and Renz, Herbert, pp. 423–427. C. & M. Brünne, Berlin.Google Scholar
Koppe, Thomas, and Schumacher, K.-U. 1992 Untersuchungen zum Pneumatisationsgrad des Viscerocranium beim Menschen und bei den Pongiden. Acta anatomica Nipponica 67:725–734.Google Scholar
Kuzminsky, Susan C., and Gardiner, Megan S. 2012 Three-Dimensional Laser Scanning: Potential Uses for Museum Conservation and Scientific Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2744–2751. DOI:10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebrun, Renaud, and Orliac, Maëva J. 2017 MorphoMuseuM: An Online Platform for Publication and Storage of Virtual Specimens. Paleontological Society Papers 22:183–195. DOI:10.1017/scs.2017.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Yadong, and Gu, Peihua 2004 Free-Form Surface Inspection Techniques State of the Art Review. Computer-Aided Design 36:1395–1417. DOI:10.1016/j.cad.2004.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmoud, Dalia, Khali, Abdallah, and Younes, Mohammed 2015 Optimization of the Longitudinal Resolution of a Structured Light Shape Reconstruction System, a DOE Approach. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 16:1935–1939. DOI:10.1007/s12541-015-0251-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márquez, Samuel, and Laitman, Jeffrey T. 2008 Climatic Effects on the Nasal Complex: A CT Imaging, Comparative Anatomical, and Morphometric Investigation of Macaca mulatta and Macaca fascicularis. Anatomical Record 291:1420–1445. DOI:10.1002/ar.20785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Means, Bernard K. 2015 Promoting a More Interactive Public Archaeology: Archaeological Visualization and Reflexivity through Virtual Artifact Curation. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3:235–248. DOI:10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Means, Bernard K. 2017 A Digital Passport to the Past: The “Accidental” Public Archaeology of the Virtual Curation Laboratory. Public Archaeology 16:1–9. DOI:10.1080/14655187.2016.1258916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menéndez, Lumila Paula 2017 Comparing Methods to Assess Intraobserver Measurement Error of 3D Craniofacial Landmarks Using Geometric Morphometrics through a Digitizer Arm. Journal of Forensic Sciences 62:741–746. DOI:10.1111/1556-4029.13301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minetola, P., Iuliano, L., and Calignano, F. 2015 A Customer Oriented Methodology for Reverse Engineering Software Selection in the Computer Aided Inspection Scenario. Computers in Industry 67:54–71. DOI:10.1016/j.compind.2014.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, William M., Vig, Peter S., Staab, Eedward V., and Matteson, Stephen R. 1979 Computed Tomography: A Three-Dimensional Study of the Nasal Airway. American Journal of Orthodontics 76:363–375. DOI:10.1016/0002-9416(79)90223-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neubauer, Simon, Gunz, Philipp, Weber, Gerhard W., and Hublin, Jean-Jacques 2012 Endocranial Volume of Australopithecus africanus: New CT-Based Estimates and the Effects of Missing Data and Small Sample Size. Journal of Human Evolution 62:498–510. DOI:10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.01.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niven, Kieron, and Richards, Julian D. 2017 The Storage and Long-Term Preservation of 3D Data. In Human Remains: Another Dimension: The Application of Imaging to the Study of Human Remains, edited by Errickson, David and Thompson, Tim, pp. 175–184. Academic Press, San Diego.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obeidat, Suleiman M., and Raman, Shivakumar 2008 An Intelligent Sampling Method for Inspecting Free-Form Surfaces. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 40:1125–1136. DOI:10.1007/s00170-008-1427-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poniatowska, Malgorzata 2012 Deviation Model Based Method of Planning Accuracy Inspection of Free-Form Surfaces Using CMMs. Measurement 45:927–937. DOI:10.1016/j.measurement.2012.01.051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prossinger, Hermann, Seidler, Horst, Wicke, Lothar, Weaver, Dave, Recheis, Wolfgang, Stringer, Chris, and Müller, Gerd B. 2003 Electronic Removal of Encrustations inside the Steinheim Cranium Reveals Paranasal Sinus Features and Deformations, and Provides a Revised Endocranial Volume Estimate. Anatomical Record. Part B, New Anatomist 273:132–142. DOI:10.1002/ar.b.10022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rae, Todd C., and Koppe, Thomas 2002 3D Imaging and Measurement in Studies of Cranial Pneumatization. In Three-Dimensional Imaging in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology, Actes du XIVème Congrès UISPP, edited by Marfart, Bertrand and Delingette, Hervé, pp. 11–16. BAR International Series 1049. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Robinson, Christopher, and Terhune, Claire E. 2017 Error in Geometric Morphometric Data Collection: Combining Data from Multiple Sources. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 164:62–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, Gary T., Thackeray, J. Francis, Reid, Cynthia, and van Reenan, J. F. 1998 Enamel Thickness and the Topography of the Enamel-Dentine Junction in South African Plio-Pleistocene Hominids with Special Reference to the Carabelli Trait. Journal of Human Evolution 35:523–542. DOI:10.1006/jhev.1998.0239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selden, Robert Z. Jr. 2017 Asymmetry of Caddo Ceramics from the Washington Square Mound Site: An Exploratory Analysis. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 5:21–28. DOI:10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr. 2018a A Preliminary Study of Smithport Plain Bottle Morphology in the Southern Caddo Area. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 89:63–89.Google Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr. 2018b Ceramic Morphological Organisation in the Southern Caddo Area: Quiddity of Shape for Hickory Engraved Bottles. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21:884–896. DOI:10.1016/j. jasrep.2018.08.045.Google Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr. 2019 Ceramic Morphological Organisation in the Southern Caddo Area: The Clarence H. Webb Collections. Journal of Cultural Heritage 35:41–55. DOI:10.1016/j.culher.2018.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr. 2021 Louisiana Limitrophe: An Iterative Morphological Exegesis of Caddo Bottle and Biface Production. In Ancestral Caddo Ceramic Traditions, edited by McKinnon, Duncan P., Girard, Jeffrey S., and Perttula, Timothy K., pp. 258–276. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
Robert Z., Selden Jr., Dockall, John E., Britt Bousman, C., and Perttula, Timothy K. 2021 Shape as a Function of Time + Raw Material + Burial Context? An Exploratory Analysis of Perdiz Arrow Points from the Ancestral Caddo Area of the American Southeast. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 37:102916. DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102916.Google Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr., Dockall, John E., and Dubied, Morgane 2020 A Quantitative Assessment of Intraspecific Morphological Variation in Gahagan Bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area and Central Texas. Southeastern Archaeology 39:125–145. DOI:10.1080/0734578x.2020.1744416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr., Dockall, John E., and Shafer, Harry J. 2018 Lithic Morphological Organisation: Gahagan Bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 10. DOI:10.1016/j.daach.2018.e00080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr., and Jones, Bradford M. 2021 Reverse Engineering a Bronze Cannon from the La Belle Shipwreck. Historical Archaeology 55:290–299. DOI:10.1007/s41636-020-00280-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr., Means, Bernard K., Iglesias, Edward G., and Mosier, Kreg 2018 Morphological Variation in Three-Dimensional Printed Replicas. CRHR Research Reports 4:Article 3. Electronic document, https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/crhr_research_reports/vol4/iss1/3/, accessed August 17, 2021.Google Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr., Means, Bernard K., Lohse, Jon C., Koenig, Charles, and Black, Stephen L. 2014 Beyond Documentation: 3D Data in Archaeology. Texas Archeology 58:20–24.Google Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr., Perttula, Timothy K., and J. O'Brien, Michael 2014 Advances in Documentation, Digital Curation, Virtual Exhibition, and a Test of 3D Geometric Morphometrics. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2:64–79. DOI:10.7183/2326-3768.2.2.64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senck, Sascha, Bookstein, Fred L., Benazzi, Stefano, Kastner, Johann, and Weber, Gerhard W. 2015 Virtual Reconstruction of Modern and Fossil Hominoid Crania: Consequences of Reference Sample Choice. Anatomical Record 298:827–841. DOI:10.1002/ar.23104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senck, Sascha, Coquerelle, Michael, Weber, Gerhard W., and Benazzi, Stefano 2013 Virtual Reconstruction of Very Large Skull Defects Featuring Partly and Completely Missing Midsagittal Planes. Anatomical Record 296:745–758. DOI:10.1002/ar.22693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shearer, Brian M., Cooke, Siobhán B., Halenar, Lauren B., Reber, Samantha L., Plummer, Jeannette E., Delson, Eric, and Tallman, Melissa 2017 Evaluating Causes of Error in Landmark-Based Data Collection Using Scanners. PLoS ONE 12:e0187452. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0187452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sholts, S. B., Flores, L., Walker, P. L., and Wärmländer, S. K. T. S. 2011 Comparison of Coordinate Measurement Precision of Different Landmark Types on Human Crania Using a 3D Laser Scanner and a 3D Digitiser: Implications for Applications of Digital Morphometrics. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21:535–543. DOI:10.1002/oa.1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael 2014 Digitizing Archaeology: A Subtle Revolution in Analysis. World Archaeology 46:1–9. DOI:10.1080/00438243.2013.879046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slice, Dennis E. 2007 Geometric Morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:261–281. DOI:10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoor, Fred, Jeffery, Nathan, and Zonneveld, Frans 2000 Imaging Skeletal Growth and Evolution. In Development, Growth and Evolution: Implications for the Study of the Hominid, edited by O'Higgins, Paul and Cohn, Martin J., pp. 123–161. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Spoor, C. Fred, Zonneveld, Frans W., and Macho, Gabriele A. 1993 Linear Measurements of Cortical Bone and Dental Enamel by Computed Tomography: Applications and Problems. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 91:469–484. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330910405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stalling, Detlev, Westerhoff, Malte, and Hege, Hans-Christian 2005 Amira: A Highly Interactive System for Visual Data Analysis. In The Visualization Handbook, edited by Hansen, Charles D. and Johnson, Chris R., pp. 749–767. Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann, Burlington, Massachusetts. DOI:10.1016/b978-012387582-2/50040-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, Alexander J., Wegscheider, Peter K., Nelson, Andrew J., and Dickey, James P. 2015 Quantifying the Precision and Accuracy of the MicroScribe G2X Three-Dimensional Digitizer. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 2:28–33. DOI:10.1016/j.daach.2015.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, Michala K., Garvin, Heather M., Corron, Louise K., Hulse, Cortney N., Cirillo, Laura E., Klales, Alexandra R., Colman, Kerri L., and Stull, Kyra E. 2020 The Importance of Processing Procedures and Threshold Values in CT Scan Segmentation of Skeletal Elements: An Example Using the Immature Os Coxa. Forensic Science International 309:110232. DOI:10.1016/j. forsciint.2020.110232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stull, Kyra E., Tise, Meredith L., Ali, Zabiullah, and Fowler, David R. 2014 Accuracy and Reliability of Measurements Obtained from Computed Tomography 3D Volume Rendered Images. Forensic Science International 238:133–140. DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.03.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tocheri, Matthew W. 2009 Laser Scanning: 3D Analysis of Biological Surfaces. In Advanced Imaging in Biology and Medicine, edited by Sensen, Christoph W. and Hallgrímsson, Benedikt, pp. 85–101. Springer, Berlin. DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-68993-5_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzou, Chieh-Han, Artner, Nicole M., Pona, Igor, Hold, Alina, Placheta, Eva, Kropatsch, Walter G., and Frey, Manfred 2014 Comparison of Three-Dimensional Surface-Imaging Systems. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 67:489–497. DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullrich, C. G., Binet, E. F., Sanecki, M. G., and Kieffer, S. A. 1980 Quantitative Assessment of the Lumbar Spinal Canal by Computed Tomography. Radiology 134:137–143. DOI:10.1148/radiology.134.1.7350593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wachowiak, Melvin J., and Karas, Basiliki Vicky 2013 3D Scanning and Replication for Museum and Cultural Heritage Applications. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 48:141–158. DOI:10.1179/019713609804516992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Gerhard W. 2015 Virtual Anthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 156:22–42. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, Gerhard W., and Bookstein, Fred L. 2011 Virtual Anthropology: A Guide to a New Interdisciplinary Field. Springer-Verlag, Vienna.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyrich, T., Pauly, M., Keiser, R., Heinzle, S., Scandella, S., and Gross, M. 2004 Post-Processing of Scanned 3D Surface Data. In Eurographics Symposium on Point-Based Graphics, edited by Alexa, M. and Rusinkiewicz, S., pp. 85–94. Eurographics Association, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
White, Suzanna 2015 Virtual Archaeology: The NextEngine Desktop Laser Scanner. Archaeology International 18:41–44. DOI:10.5334/ai.1804.Google Scholar
Wong, F. S. Y., Chuah, K. B., and Venuvinod, P. K. 2006 Automated Inspection Process Planning: Algorithmic Inspection Feature Recognition, and Inspection Case Representation for CBR. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 22:56–68. DOI:10.1016/j.rcim.2005.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yogi, Muldani Hendrawan, Yatna, Yuwana M., and Raharno, Sri 2014 Development of Computer Aided Inspection Planning (CAIP) Application in on Machine Measurement Operation (OMM) Operations for Box Primitive Features: Generating Inspection Codes. Applied Mechanics and Materials 660:889–893. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.660.889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, Miriam Leah, Swiderski, Donald L., and David Sheets, H. 2012 Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Zollikofer, Christoph P., and de Leon, Marcia Ponce 2005 Virtual Reconstruction: A Primer in Computer-Assisted Paleontology and Biomedicine. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, F., Spoor, C., and Wind, J. 1989 The Use of the CT in the Study of the Internal Morphology of Hominid Fossils. Medicamundi 34:117–128.Google Scholar