Three-Dimensional Generalized Resistant Fitting and the Comparison of Least-Squares and Resistant-Fit Residuals

  • Dennis E. Slice
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 284)


The resistant-fit methods of superimposing configurations of landmarks are extended to three-dimensional data. Algorithms are described for fitting one configuration to another and for the fitting of a sample of configurations to a iteratively estimated consensus configuration. In addition, several topics relating to the practical use of the superimposition methods are discussed. These topics include missing data, visualization of results and the display and interpretation of affine components. Finally, an example is presented of how to use different graphical comparisons of resistant-fit and least-squares (Procrustes) residuals to identify subsets of landmarks contributing to localized shape differences. These procedures are shown to suggest considerable local variation in the posterior region of the carapace of certain individual yellow-bellied slider turtles, Trachemys scripta scripta.


Affine Transformation Shape Difference Individual Shell Individual Landmark Consensus Configuration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anton, H. 1984. Calculus, with analytic geometry. John Wiley & Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bookstein, F. L. 1984. Tensor biometrics for changes in cranial shape. Annals of Human Biology 11: 413–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bookstein, F. L. 1989. Principal warps: Thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. I. E. E. E. Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11: 567–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Bookstein, F. L. and P. Sampson. 1987. Statistical models for geometric components of shape change. Pages 18–27 in Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Graphics, 1987 Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association. American Statistical Association: Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  6. Cagle, F. R. 1950. The life history of the slider turtle, Pseudemys scripta troostii (Holbrook). Ecological Monographs 20 (1): 32–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dryden, I. L., and K. V. Mardia. 1991. General shape distributions in a plane. Advances in Applied Probability 23: 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eves, H. 1966. Elementary matrix theory. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.: Boston.Google Scholar
  9. Goodall, C. R. 1991. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape (with discussion and rejoinder). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 53 (2): 285–339.Google Scholar
  10. Goodall, C. R. 1992. Dynamic graphics in non-Euclidean spaces: the visualization and statistical analysis of shape. 1992 Proceedings of the Statistical Graphics Section. American Statistical Association: Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  11. Goodall, C. R., and P. B. Green. 1986. Quantitative analysis of surface growth. Botanical Gazette 147: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodall, C. R., and K. V. Mardia. 1991. A geometrical derivation of the shape density. Advances in Applied Probability 23: 496–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gower, J. C. 1970. Statistical methods of comparing different multivariate analyses of the same data. Pages 138–149 in F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall, and P. Tautu (eds.), Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  14. Gower, J. C. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40: 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartman, S. E. 1989. Stereophotographic analysis of occlusal morphology of extant hominoid molars: phenetics and function. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 80 (2): 145–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jolicoeur, P., and J. E. Mosimann. 1960. Size and shape variation in the painted turtle, a principal component analysis. Growth 24: 339–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mardia, K. V. and I. L. Dryden. 1989. Shape distributions for landmark data. Advances in Applied Probability 21: 742–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mosier, C. I. 1939. Determining a simple structure when loadings for certain tests are known. Psychometrika 4: 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rohlf, F. J. and L. F. Marcus. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8 (4): 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rohlf, F. J., and D. E. Slice. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology. 39: 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siegel, A. F., and R. H. Benson. 1982. A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics 38: 341–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siegel, A. F., and J. R. Pinkerton. 1982. Robust comparison of three-dimensional shapes with an application to protein molecule configurations. Technical Report 217, Series 2, Department of Statistics, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  23. Slice, D. E. 1991. DS-DIGIT: Basic digitizing software. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 117–94.Google Scholar
  24. Slice, D. E. 1993. Extensions, comparisons, and applications of superimposition methods for morphometric analysis. Ph. D. dissertation. State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  25. Slice, D. E. 1994. GRF-ND: Generalized rotational fitting of N-dimensional data. Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794.Google Scholar
  26. Sneath, P. H. A. 1967. Trend-surface analysis of transformation grids. Journal of Zoology 151: 65–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walker, J. A. 1994. Morphometrika. Geometric morphometrics for the Macintosh. Department of Anatomical Sciences. State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, 11794.Google Scholar
  28. Zangerl, R. 1969. The turtle shell. Pages 311–339 in C. A. Gans, A. d’A. Bellairs, and T. S. Parsons (eds.), Biology of the Reptilia. Volume 1. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis E. Slice
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolution StateUniversity of New YorkStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations