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
S. B. SHOLTS,
a
L. FLORES,
a
P. L. WALKER
a
AND S. K. T. S. WA

RMLA

NDER
a,b
*
a
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
b
Division of Biophysics, Arrhenius Laboratories, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT A total of 11340 Cartesian coordinates of 42 homologous landmarks on ve excavated human crania were
recorded by three observers using a three-dimensional (3D) digitiser and computer models created with a 3D
laser scanner. The aim was to compare the errors of the coordinate data of landmarks of different types
recorded with these two techniques. The results showed that digitiser-based and 3D model-based coordinate
measurements had overall standard deviations of, respectively, 0.79 and 1.05mm. However, the 3D
digitiser yielded the most precise coordinate data for landmarks dened primarily by biological criteria (Type I
landmarks), while the 3D laser scanner models yielded the most precise coordinate data for landmarks
dened primarily by geometric criteria (Type III landmarks). These ndings are likely to inuence the research
design of future craniometric studies, as they indicate that the suitability of certain landmark types as reference
points for geometric operations, such as partial Procrustes analysis, depends on the method by which they are
measured. This information is particularly important for retrospective research or for combined databases
such as FORDISC or CRANID, which may integrate different types of landmarks recorded by different
researchers and/or instruments. Crania displaying poor preservation and surface discoloration yielded larger
measurement errors, especially for the 3Dmodel measurements. This is not surprising given that landmarks on
3Dmodels cannot be located using tactile means, but have to be located solely on a visual basis. Nonetheless,
even though the digitiser measurements exhibit an overall precision slightly greater than the 3D model
measurements, both techniques yield coordinate data with a precision sufcient for most craniometric
research. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: three-dimensional models; observer error; digital morphometrics; craniometrics; laser scanning;
measurement precision
Introduction
Morphological comparisons made by physical anthro-
pologists typically employ anatomical landmarks:
discrete, easily identiable points that are biologically
homologous among the specimens analysed (Book-
stein, 1991: 58). These landmarks traditionally serve as
the termini of linear Euclidean distance, subtense and
angle measurements from which statistically signicant
morphological relationships are identied (Boas, 1905,
1912; Hrdlic ka, 1920; Martin & Saller, 1957; Olivier,
1969; van Vark & Howells, 1984). Studies documenting
the precision and repeatability of such measurements
form the methodological foundation of this approach
(Utermohle & Zegura, 1981; Hildebolt et al., 1990; Carr
et al., 1993; Jamison & Ward, 1993; Wong et al., 2008).
Other approaches to morphological comparisons
involve using Cartesian coordinates of landmarks, or
the surfaces and contours between them (Marcus,
1990; Rohlf & Bookstein, 1990; Bookstein, 1991; Rohlf
& Marcus, 1993; Lestrel, 1997; Richtsmeier et al., 2002;
Williams & Richtsmeier, 2003; Adams et al., 2004;
Zelditch et al., 2004; McKeown & Jantz, 2005; Slice,
2005). As an example of the latter approach, the three
landmarks nasion and left and right zygomaxillare can be
used to dene a geometric plane, whose intersection
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.1156
* Correspondence to: Division of Biophysics, Arrhenius Laboratories,
Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
e-mail: seb@dbb.su.se
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 26 June 2009
Revised 3 January 2010
Accepted 6 January 2010
with a 3D model of a cranium will produce a midfacial
contour (Figure 1) that can be analysed with elliptic
Fourier analysis in combination with standard statistical
procedures (Kuhl & Giardina, 1982; Sholts et al., n.d.-a).
As digital 3D models, in addition to the traditional
Euclidean linear distances, can yield Cartesian land-
mark coordinates, surface regions and line contours for
digital morphometric analysis, they are more versatile
than, for example, 3D digitiser data. However, since
contours, regions, linear distances and coordinates
from different specimens generally require homolo-
gous reference landmarks for comparison, the ability of
researchers to identify reference landmarks with high
precision and repeatability is imperative for all these
approaches to shape analysis.
Previous research has shown that the precision with
which landmarks can be located varies between
different landmark types (sensu Bookstein, 1991), such
as those at sutural intersections (Type I, e.g. bregma),
those at geometric maxima of bony protrusions or
depressions (Type II, e.g. jugale), and those at extremal
locations with respect to other landmarks or geometric
entities (Type III, e.g. glabella). Anumber of studies using
3D digitisers have reported that Type I landmarks are
measured with the highest precision and Type III
landmarks withthelowest (Corner et al., 1992; Slice et al.,
2004; von Cramon-Taubadel et al., 2007; Ross &
Williams, 2008; Simonis et al., 2009), leading some
researchers to suggest that Type III landmarks should be
used with caution in craniometric research (Ross &
Williams, 2008). Similar results have been obtained for
landmark data obtained from computed tomography
(CT) models (Hildebolt et al., 1990; Richtsmeier et al.,
1995; Valeri et al., 1998; Senol et al., 2001; Williams &
Richtsmeier, 2003; Badawi-Fayad & Cabanis, 2007).
In addition to digitiser- and CT-based techniques,
craniometric data can also be obtained from 3D models
produced by 3D laser scanners, which are currently
gaining popularity due to their speed, portability and
affordability. Since laser scanners employ different
imaging technology than CT and magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) units, that is non-invasive, surface-
reected light instead of damaging (Grieshaber et al.,
2008) bulk-penetrating X-rays or modulated magnetic
elds, tests of measurement precision for CT or MRI
models do not apply to laser scanner models. At present,
precision tests of landmark coordinate data from laser
scanner 3D models have only been carried out for the
humanface (Aung et al., 1995; Bush&Antonyshyn, 1996;
Hennessy et al., 2005; Kovacs et al., 2006). These studies
have not used dry skulls or addressed the unique
taphonomic problems associatedwithexcavatedskeletal
material, for example post-mortem breaks, surface
discoloration, fragility, etc. This presents a problem
for physical anthropologists, since the qualityof the data
produced by any measurement technique must be
independently evaluated before the technique can be
used in scientic research.
In this paper, we compare the measurement
precision for Type I, II and III landmark coordinates
obtained from excavated human crania using both a 3D
digitiser and 3D models created with a desktop laser
scanner. We investigate which homologous landmarks
are most suitable to use as reference points for the
geometric operations involved in modern shape
analysis, such as partial Procrustes analysis (von
Cramon-Taubadel et al., 2007). This information is
particularly important for retrospective research or for
combined databases such as FORDISC (Ousley &
Jantz, 1996) or CRANID (Wright, 2009), which may
use different types of landmarks recorded by different
researchers and/or instruments. We also investigate
how the precision of landmark coordinate measure-
ments is affected by surface alterations of the crania,
both for digitiser and 3D model measurements.
Materials and methods
The ve excavated adult crania used in this study are
curated by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History (NA-CA-131.3A, specimens 4040, 3819, 12-
23, 12-21 and 12-7) and are referred to in this paper as
C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5. The crania exhibited varying
levels of preservation and were labelled by decreasing
order of preservation: C1 exhibits excellent preser-
vation, C2 has a broken base but is otherwise intact, C3
has one zygomatic arch missing and displays some
rootmarks, C4 is extensively covered with root marks
and C5 exhibits very dark discoloration.
Figure 1. (A) The landmarks nasion and right and left zygomax-
illare can be used to dene a geometric plane that isolates the
anterior midfacial skeleton of a 3D model of a cranium. (B) A
second plane is used to isolate the portion above zygomaxillare.
(C) The outline contour of the remaining midfacial portion can be
used for morphometric comparisons.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
S. B. Sholts et al.
Cartesian coordinates of 42 landmarks (Table 1) were
recorded for each cranium by three different observers,
producing a total of six sets of landmark coordinates for
each of the ve crania using the two measurement
techniques described below. For statistical purposes,
each measurement was repeated by the observers three
times, yielding a total of 5670 coordinate measurements
for each technique. The three observers had different
levels of experience with the two measurement
techniques: LF was very experienced with the digitiser
but less experienced with 3D model analysis, SBS was
very experienced with 3D model analysis but less
experienced with the digitiser, and SW was inexperi-
enced with both the digitiser and 3D model analysis.
3D digitiser
The 3D digitiser used was a MicroScribe G2
(Immersion Corporation), which operates with an
accuracy of 0.38 mm. Landmarks coordinates were
recorded using ThreeSkull 2.0.77 software written by
Stephen Ousley. Before measurement, each cranium
was positioned in alignment with the Frankfurt
horizontal plane. The crania remained unmoved from
their position relative to the digitiser between trials,
and the origin point of the digitiser was reset for each
new specimen.
3D laser scanner
3D models of the crania were made by observer LF
using a NextEngine Desktop 3D Scanner from
NextEngine, Inc. This unit operates with both laser
and normal light. The laser beams sweep across the
surface of the object to be recorded, allowing detectors
to measure the distance to the objects surface. At the
same time, the object is illuminated by normal white
light, allowing a built-in digital colour camera to
capture high-resolution colour images of the surface. In
the present study, the geometric point resolution was
set to 75 dots per inch (DPI), point coordinates were
measured with an accuracy of 0.38 mm, and colour
information was recorded at 150 DPI.
In order to produce complete 3D models, 16 scans
from different perspectives were taken of each cranium
according to a previously developed protocol (Sholts
et al., n.d.-b). The time required to record these 16
scans was approximately 45 min. ScanStudio Core
1.7.3 software (NextEngine, Inc., 2006) was used to
merge the different scans into a single-surface model, a
process that on average takes about 30 minutes for an
experienced user.
Models were imported into RapidWorks 2.3 soft-
ware (Rapidform, Inc., 2008), and each 3D model was
positioned in alignment with the Frankfurt horizontal
plane within the Cartesian space of the program. Each
model was adjusted for right-left symmetry along the
midsagittal plane, and the origin of the coordinate
system was set at a homologous point (nasion). The
models were saved in the native le format, preserving
their orientation for the measurement trials that
followed. During these trials, the origin and axes of
the coordinate systems were hidden so that nasion
could be independently measured and subsequently
included among the Type I landmarks measured by
each observer.
Statistical analysis
The 42 landmarks employed in the study (Table 1)
were subdivided into Types I (n 10), II (n 10) and
III (n 22), following the typology developed by
Bookstein (1991). All 42 landmarks are among those
used in the ThreeSkull 2.0.77 programand are listed by
type in Table 1. For all landmark coordinate
measurements, standard deviation (SD) values were
calculated according to Equation (1). Mean values of
sets of SDs were calculated for different observers,
landmark types and the two different techniques
according to Equation (2). In order to test the
Table 1. The 42 landmarks used in the study (L left, Rright),
listed by landmark types I (n 10), II (n10) and III (n22)
Type I Type II Type III
Asterion (L, R) Marginal process Alare (L, R)
Bregma
Krotaphion (L, R)
lateral (L)
Mastoideale (L, R)
Cheek height inferior
point (L)
Lambda
Nasion
Radiculare (L, R)
Subspinale
Cheek height superior
point (L)
Sphenofrontale (L) Supraglabellare Ectomolare (R)
Stephanion (L, R) Zygoorbitale (L) Eurion (L, R)
Zygotemporale
inferior (L)
Frontomalare
anterior (R)
Zygotemporale
superior (L)
Frontomalare
temporale (L, R)
Frontotemporale (L)
Glabella
Maximum frontal
point (L, R)
Most inferior nasal
border (L, R)
Opisthocranion
Porion (L)
Sphenion (L, R)
Upper orbital
border (L)
Zygion (L)
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
3D Model and Digitiser Landmark Measurement Precision
signicance of the differences in variance between
different sets of measurements, one-tailed F-tests
(Kachigan, 1991) were conducted according to
Equation (3):
s

1
3N
X
N
i1
x
i
x
2
y
i
y
2
z
i
z
2
r
(1)
s

1
n
2
X
n
i1
s
2
r
(2)
F
s
1
s
2

2
(3)
where x
i
, y
i
and z
i
are the different coordinate readings
for each trial, x, y and z are the mean values, N is the
number of trials for each specimen measurement, that is
three, and n is the number of SDs being averaged. It was
assumed that the errors follow a normal distribution,
and the null hypothesis for the F-test was F 1,
corresponding to identical variances.
Results and discussion
In Table 2, mean SD values for the landmark
coordinate measurements are reported by specimen
number, instrument and landmark type. In Table 3,
mean SD values are reported by observer, instrument
and landmark type. In Tables 4 and 5, F-test results for
select comparisons are reported.
As shown in Table 2, the mean SD values of the 3D
digitiser measurements are in the range of 0.30.9 mm
for Type I landmarks, 0.40.7 mm for Type II
Table 2. Mean SD values (mm) for all three observers by speci-
men, instrument and landmark type (grand mean values in bold)
Specimen Instrument Type I Type II Type III Overall
C1 Digitiser 0.30 0.43 1.57 1.00
C2 Digitiser 0.44 0.66 0.74 0.65
C3 Digitiser 0.64 0.56 0.84 0.73
C4 Digitiser 0.64 0.68 0.94 0.81
C5 Digitiser 0.89 0.66 0.79 0.78
0.58 0.60 0.98 0.79
C1 3D model 1.19 0.69 1.03 0.99
C2 3D model 1.50 0.92 0.69 0.94
C3 3D model 0.98 0.91 0.82 0.88
C4 3D model 1.64 1.17 0.98 1.18
C5 3D model 2.10 1.19 0.91 1.26
1.48 0.98 0.89 1.05
Table 4. Parameters and resulting p-values for one-tailed F-
tests of difference in variance between data for different land-
mark types (top six tests) and different instruments (bottom four
tests), for all observers and specimens
Instrument Landmarks F DF 1 DF 2 p-Value
Digitiser Type II/Type I 1.07 449 449 0.23
Digitiser Type III/Type I 2.85 989 449 <0.0001
Digitiser Type III/Type II 2.67 989 449 <0.0001
3D model Type I/Type II 2.28 449 449 <0.0001
3D model Type I/Type III 2.77 449 989 <0.0001
3D model Type II/Type III 1.21 449 989 0.0081
3D model/digitiser Type I 6.51 449 449 <0.0001
3D model/digitiser Type II 2.67 449 449 <0.0001
Digitiser/3D model Type III 1.21 989 989 0.0013
3D model/digitiser Overall 1.77 1889 1889 <0.0001
The higher variance value was chosen as numerator in each test
(DFdegrees of freedom).
Table 3. Mean SD values (mm) for all ve specimens by obser-
ver, instrument and landmark type (grand mean values in bold)
Observer Instrument Type I Type II Type III Overall
LF Digitiser 0.41 0.48 0.46 0.45
SBS Digitiser 0.96 0.93 1.72 1.35
SW Digitiser 0.38 0.39 0.75 0.58
0.58 0.60 0.98 0.79
LF 3D model 0.67 0.75 0.75 0.73
SBS 3D model 1.37 1.08 1.04 1.13
SW 3D model 2.40 1.11 0.88 1.30
1.48 0.98 0.89 1.05
Table 5. Parameters and resulting p-values for one-tailed F-
tests of difference in variance between data for different land-
mark types for all specimens, listed by observer and instrument
Observer Instrument Landmarks F DF 1 DF 2 p-Value
LF Digitiser Type II/ Type I 1.37 149 149 0.028
Type III/ Type I 1.26 329 149 0.054
Type II/ Type III 1.09 149 329 0.26
3D model Type II/ Type I 1.25 149 149 0.087
Type III/ Type I 1.25 329 149 0.060
Type III/ Type II 1.00 329 149 0.51
SBS Digitiser Type I/ Type II 1.07 149 149 0.34
Type III/ Type I 3.21 329 149 <0.0001
Type III/ Type II 3.42 329 149 <0.0001
3D model Type I/ Type II 1.61 149 149 0.0019
Type I/ Type III 1.74 149 329 <0.0001
Type II/ Type III 1.08 149 329 0.28
SW Digitiser Type II/ Type I 1.05 149 149 0.38
Type III/ Type I 3.9 329 149 <0.0001
Type III/ Type II 3.7 329 149 <0.0001
3D model Type I/ Type II 4.67 149 149 <0.0001
Type I/ Type III 7.44 149 329 <0.0001
Type II/ Type III 1.59 149 329 0.0031
The higher variance value was chosen as numerator in each test
(DFdegrees of freedom).
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
S. B. Sholts et al.
landmarks and 0.71.6 mm for Type III. The overall
average SD value is 0.79 mm. These results correspond
well to other similar studies: von Cramon-Taubadel
et al. (2007) report mean SD values of 0.10.8, 0.31.1
and 0.351.4 mm for digitiser measurements of,
respectively, Type I, II and III landmarks, and Simonis
et al. (2009) measure digitiser intra- and inter-observer
precisions of, respectively, 0.273.2 and 0.56
4.74 mm, with the higher values being for Type III
and the smaller for Type I landmarks. For the 3Dmodel
measurements, the mean SD values are in the range
1.02.1, 0.71.2 and 0.71.0 mm for, respectively,
Type I, II and III landmarks (Table 2). The overall
average SD value is 1.05 mm. Hence, the digitiser on
average yields more precise landmark coordinate
measurements than the 3D models, and the statistical
signicance of this difference was conrmed by an
F-test at the p <0.0001 level (Table 4). However, as
can be seen in Table 2, the precision of the two
methods varies considerably depending upon the type
of landmark being measured.
Type I landmarks
For Type I landmarks, the mean SD value is about three
times lower for the digitiser measurements (0.58 mm)
than for the 3D model measurements (1.48 mm)
(Table 2), corresponding to a highly signicant
difference in precision (Table 4). Since the digitiser
and the 3D scanner are both reported by their
manufacturers as having an accuracy level of approxi-
mately 0.38 mm, the observed difference in precision
cannot be attributed to the instruments themselves.
Instead, it appears that the difference in precision
between the two techniques relates to difculties in
identifying landmark locations. As Type I landmarks
are typically located at sutural intersections, their
identication may require both visual and tactile
examination of a cranium, especially when sutures are
fused or obliterated. On a 3D model, tactile features
cannot be evaluated, and landmarks must be identied
through visual inspection alone. This limitation is
particularly problematic for discoloured or otherwise
altered surfaces, where observers cannot rely on the
distinctive visual contrast that normally is associated
with intersections of hard tissues. It is therefore not
surprising that, among all specimens, the blackened
cranium C5 displays the largest SD values for Type I
landmarks, and also the largest difference between
digitiser and 3D model measurement precision
(Table 2).
Type II landmarks
For Type II landmarks, the mean SDvalues are 0.60 mm
for the 3D digitiser and 0.98 mm for the 3D models
(Table 2). Thus, the difference in precision between
the 3D digitiser and 3D model measurements is smaller
for Type II landmarks than for Type I landmarks, even
though both differences are highly statistically
signicant (Table 4). For 3D digitiser measurements,
the difference in precision between Type I and II
landmarks is not statistically signicant at an accep-
table level ( p 0.23), whereas for the 3D model
measurements the difference is highly signicant
(Table 4).
Type III landmarks
For Type III landmarks, the 3D model measurements
yielded a mean SD value of 0.89 mm, a number slightly
lower than the 0.98 mm mean SD value for the 3D
digitiser (Table 2). The higher precision for the 3D
model measurements was found to be statistically
signicant at the p 0.0013 level (Table 4). The F-tests
also revealed that the digitiser measurements of Type
III landmarks are signicantly less precise than digitiser
measurements of landmark Types I and II, while the 3D
model measurements of Type III landmarks are
signicantly more precise than the 3D model
measurements of landmark Types I and II (Table 4).
The higher precision for 3D model measurements of
Type III landmarks is easily explained by the numerous
geometric tools available in 3D modelling software,
which can be used to dene and display reference
entities such as planes and vectors. If desired, built-in
software functions can automatically retrieve coordi-
nates for the intersections of these user-dened entities
and mesh surfaces, or measure the distances between
them. The 3D models can also be scaled, rotated and
made transparent in order to enhance the visibility of
paired landmarks or extremal points. These operations
can conveniently be carried out without changing the
position of the 3Dmodel within the coordinate system.
Thus, with the 3D model approach, it is relatively
straightforward to identify landmark locations that are
based on geometric rather than solely anatomical
criteria.
Cranial preservation
The differential preservation of the crania employed in
the study made it possible to investigate possible
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
3D Model and Digitiser Landmark Measurement Precision
correlations between the level of preservation of a
cranium and the magnitude of its coordinate measure-
ment errors. In Figure 2, which shows photographic
images of specimens C3 and C5 and their respective
3D models in juxtaposition, it is clear that surface
alterations in the form of discoloration and root marks
complicate the visual location of cranial features such
as sutures, especially on the 3D models. It is therefore
reasonable to expect that surface alterations would
result in greater measurement errors for at least some
cranial landmarks. In Table 2, a general trend of
increased mean SD values with specimen number, that
is with decreasing preservation of the specimens, can
be seen for measurements of Type I and II landmarks.
Although the digitiser measurements were found to be
signicantly more precise than the 3D model
measurements for Type I and II landmarks of all
specimens (F-test data not shown), it is also clear that
the difference in precision between digitiser and 3D
model measurements increases with poor preservation
(Table 2). For example, for the well-preserved speci-
men C1, the difference in mean SD values between
digitiser and 3D model measurements is 0.89 mm for
Type I and 0.26 mm for Type II landmarks. For the
severely blackened specimen C5, the difference in
precision is much higher, that is 1.21 mm for Type I
and 0.53 mm for Type II landmarks (Table 2). Hence,
the results in this study not only indicate that the
precision of Type I and II landmark measurements is
affected by cranial deterioration, but also that this
adverse effect is more severe for 3D model measure-
ments than for digitiser measurements.
These observations are not surprising, given that
both Type I and II landmarks are often located using
visual as well as tactile means. For the 3D model
measurements, however, the tactile component is not
available as the observers cannot palpate the cranial
surface while locating landmarks. In addition, visually
locating landmarks is more difcult on 3D models than
the physical specimens, as the visual rendering of the
3D model is imperfect in the rst place, and thus more
sensitive to distortions.
For Type III landmarks, there is no clear correlation
between the preservation of a specimen and the
precision of its measurements (Table 2), and the F-tests
(data not shown) did not reveal any signicant
difference in precision for digitiser and 3D model
measurements of Type III landmarks, except for C1.
These results are in agreement with expectations, since
discoloration or surface damage of a cranium should
not complicate the process of locating landmarks
dened primarily by geometric criteria.
Furthermore, when poor cranial preservation has
caused, for example the sutural intersections to be fused
or obliterated, even Type I landmarks may have to be
located through estimation based on geometric
criteria. For example, bregma could be identied along
a user-dened midline instead of along the sagittal
suture, resulting in it being effectively measured as a
Type II landmark. Such modications of the dening
landmark criteria will of course affect the precision of
landmark measurements. Although this issue did not
present a problem for the present study, researchers
should be aware that for poorly preserved crania, the
traditional landmark denitions and Type classi-
cations may not always apply.
Observer experience
As the digitiser measurements were generally more
precise than the 3D model measurements, it might be
expected that individual observers would exhibit this
same pattern. While observers LF (highly experienced
with the digitiser and moderately experienced with 3D
model measurements) and SW (inexperienced with
both the digitiser and the 3D models) do indeed
display signicantly higher overall precision with the
digitiser, this is not true for observer SBS, who was
moderately experienced with this instrument (Tables 3
and 5). The signicantly higher precision of 3D model
measurements obtained by SBS may be explained by
her considerable experience with 3D model analysis. If
so, the benets of this experience do not seem to carry
over to digitiser measurements, since SBSs digitiser
measurements were the least precise of all observers,
for all landmark types (Table 3).
Observer LF obtained the highest overall precision
in digitiser measurements among all observers
Figure 2. Photographic (left) and 3D model images (right) for
specimens C5 (A and B) and C3 (C and D) showing that some
visual resolution is lost in the 3Dimages. This gure is available in
colour online at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/oa.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
S. B. Sholts et al.
(Table 3), which may be explained by her considerable
experience with the technique. Even though her 3D
model measurements were signicantly less precise
than her digitiser measurements for all landmark types
(data not shown), LF nevertheless obtained the highest
overall precision for 3D model measurements
(Table 2), a technique for which she was not the
most experienced observer. While it is possible that her
experience with the digitiser carried over to her 3D
model measurements, these results are more plausibly
explained by the fact that LF was the person who
scanned and created the 3D models of the crania used
in this study. While these circumstances do not bias
comparisons between the two measurement methods,
by landmark type or overall, they do give LF an
advantage over the other observers and help to account
for the high precision of her measurements. The highly
precise measurements by LF therefore suggest that
physically examining a cranium before or during the
process of measuring 3D models may reduce observer
error.
For SW, the least experienced observer, his digitiser
measurements of different landmark types were in no
case the least precise of all observers, showing that the
digitiser can be skilfully operated with relatively little
training. For the 3D model technique, SWs inexperi-
ence is evident only in his measurements of Type I
landmarks, as these values exhibit the lowest level of
precision in the whole study (Tables 3 and 5). Given
the previously discussed difculties of locating Type I
landmarks on 3D models, a plausible interpretation is
that observer experience with 3D models or with
general cranial osteology is most useful when the
biological criteria that primarily dene a landmark are
poorly visible in digital representation.
Conclusions
In this study, we show that 5670 landmark coordinate
measurements from 3D models of ve crania produced
by a desktop laser scanner yield an overall mean SD
value of 1.05 mm, whereas the same number and type
of measurements obtained with a 3D digitiser are
signicantly more precise, with an overall mean SD
value of 0.79 mm. These values are in line with the
results of previous studies of landmark measurement
precision, as is the nding that the 3D digitiser
measurements in this study were most precise for Type
I and least precise for Type III landmarks (Corner et al.,
1992; Slice et al., 2004; von Cramon-Taubadel et al.,
2007; Ross & Williams, 2008; Simonis et al., 2009). For
this reason, many researchers favour using coordinates
from Type I over Type III landmarks in craniometric
studies. As Slice et al. (2004: 183) state, triple sutural
points are best, extremal points like opisthocranion
worst. For the 3D model measurements, however, the
opposite is true: precision was highest for Type III
landmarks and lowest for Type I landmarks. As Type III
landmarks are primarily dened by geometric criteria,
these results are readily explained by the extensive
geometric tools available in software for analysing 3D
laser scanner models. However, geometric tools are of
no use in locating Type I landmarks, which are dened
by biological criteria like intersections of sutures and
bone. Since such features do not always display a sharp
visual contrast, especially in specimens exhibiting
deterioration or discoloration, they can be difcult to
visually locate on a 3D model.
Our ndings thereforesuggest that TypeIII landmarks
are most suitable as reference points for morphometric
procedures, for example partial Procrustes superimposi-
tion or plane-based contour analysis, when coordinate
data are obtained from 3D laser scanner models. This
inverse relationship between 3Ddigitiser and 3Dmodel
measurement precision for Type I and III landmarks
raises concerns regarding studies and computer pro-
grams that combine landmark-based craniometric
measurements obtained by different instruments.
Although there is no perfect solution to this problem,
somemeasures canbetakentomitigateits effects. Bypre-
labelling certain anatomical landmarks on the human
face prior to laser scanning, Bush & Antonyshyn (1996)
improved measurement precision fromover 2 mmto less
than 0.6mm for landmarks that cannot be reliably
located through interactive visualisation alone. Based on
these results, it is likely that pre-labelling dry human
skulls withsmall adhesive markers or balls of plasticine at
Type I landmarks, such as asterion and bregma, would also
reduce measurement error. Alternatively, Type II land-
marks could be chosen as reference points for morpho-
metricprocedures, sincetheyexhibit themost consistent
measurement precision for different instruments.
As there is no uniform standard for acceptable
levels of measurement error in morphometric research,
the goals and aims of each particular study should
dictate the selection of landmarks and the level of
measurement precision needed. Nonetheless, for all
landmarks used in this study, both the digitiser and the
laser scanner 3D models yield coordinate measure-
ments of a precision sufcient for most craniometric
research. However, due to the differences in the
distribution of measurement error between the two
techniques, caution should be exercised when
combining coordinate data obtained with digitisers
and 3D models.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
3D Model and Digitiser Landmark Measurement Precision
Acknowledgements
The crania used in the study were made available to the
authors by Dr John Johnson and Dr Ray Corbett in the
Anthropology Department at the Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History. Michael Kim, Paul Noceti
and other NextEngine and Rapidform employees pro-
vided the authors with technical support on numerous
occasions. The comments of the anonymous reviewers
helped to improve the manuscript. We dedicate this
paper to the late Prof. Phillip Walker, without whom
the work would not have been possible.
References
Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 2004. Geometric morpho-
metrics: ten years of progress following the revolution.
Italian Journal of Zoology 71: 516.
Aung SC, Ngim RCK, Lee ST. 1995. Evaluation of the laser
scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy
compared with direct facial anthropometric instruments.
British Journal of Plastic Surgery 48: 551558.
Badawi-Fayad J, Cabanis E-A. 2007. Three-dimensional
Procrustes analysis of modern human craniofacial form.
The Anatomical Record 290: 268276. 10.1002/ar.20442.
Boas F. 1905. The horizontal plane of the skull and the
general problem of the comparison of variable forms.
Science 21: 862863.
Boas F. 1912. The measurement of differences between
variable quantities. Journal of the American Statistical Associ-
ation 18(140): 425445.
Bookstein F. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data:
Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press: Cam-
bridge.
Bush K, Antonyshyn O. 1996. Three-dimensional facial
anthropometry using a laser surface scanner: validation
of the technique. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 98(2):
226235.
Carr R, Blade L, Rempel R, Ross WD. 1993. Technical note:
on the measurement of direct vs. projected anthropo-
metric lengths. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
90(4): 515517. 10.1002/ajpa.1330900414.
Corner BD, Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. 1992. Measuring pre-
cision of three-dimensional landmark data. Journal of
Quantitative Anthropology 3: 347359.
Grieshaber BM, Osborne DL, Doubleday AF, Kaestle FA.
2008. A pilot study into the effects of X-ray and computed
tomography exposure on the amplication of DNA from
bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(3): 681687.
10.1016/j.jas.2007.06.001.
Hennessy RJ, McLearie S, Kinsella A, Waddington JL. 2005.
Facial surface analysis by 3D laser scanning and geometric
morphometrics in relation to sexual dimorphism in
cerebralcraniofacial morphogenesis and cognitive func-
tion. Journal of Anatomy 207(3): 283295. JOA444 [pii]
10.1111/j.1469-7580.2005.00444.x.
Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Knapp RH. 1990. Validation
study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomogra-
phy measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
82: 283294. 10.1002/ajpa.1330820307.
Hrdlic ka A. 1920. Anthropometry. Wistar Institute of Anatomy
and Biology: Philadelphia.
Jamison PL, Ward RE. 1993. Brief communication: measure-
ment size, precision, and reliability in craniofacial anthro-
pometry: bigger is better. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 90(4): 495500. 10.1002/ajpa.1330900409.
Kachigan SK. 1991. Multivariate Statistical Analysis: A Concep-
tual Introduction. Radius: New York.
Kovacs L, Zimmermann A, Brockmann G, Baurecht H,
Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Papadopoulos
MA, Sader R, Biemer E, Zeilhofer HF. 2006. Accuracy
and precision of the three-dimensional assessment of
the facial surface using a 3-Dlaser scanner. IEEE Transactions
on Medical Imaging 25(6): 742754. 10.1109/TMI.2006.
873624.
Kuhl FP, Giardina CR. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a
closed contour. Computer Graphics Image Processing 18: 236
258.
Lestrel PE (ed.). 1997. Fourier Descriptors and Their Applications in
Biology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Marcus LF. 1990. Traditional morphometrics. In Proceedings of
the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL
(eds). University of Michigan Museum of Zoology: Ann
Arbor; 77122.
Martin R, Saller K. 1957. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Fischer:
Stuttgart.
McKeown A, Jantz RL. 2005. Comparison of coordinate and
craniometric data for biological distance studies. In Modern
Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology, Slice DE (ed.).
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York; 213
230.
Olivier G. 1969. Practical Anthropology, Volume xii. C.C. Tho-
mas: Springeld, IL.
Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 1996. FORDISC 2.0: Personal Computer
Forensic Discriminant Functions. University of Tennessee:
Knoxville.
Richtsmeier JT, Paik CT, Elfert PC, Cole TM, Dahlman HR.
1995. Precision, repeatability, and validation of the
localization of cranial landmarks using computed
tomography scans. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 32:
217227.
Richtsmeier JT, DeLeon VB, Lele SR. 2002. The promise of
geometric morphometrics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology
45: 6391. 10.1002/ajpa.10174.
Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL. (eds). 1990. Proceedings of the Michigan
Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museumof
Zoology: Ann Arbor.
Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics.
Trends in Ecolology and Evolution 8: 129132. 10.1016/0169-
5347(93)90024-J.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
S. B. Sholts et al.
Ross AH, Williams S. 2008. Testing repeatability and error
of coordinate landmark data acquired from crania. Journal
of Forensic Sciences 53(4): 782785. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.
2008.00751.x.
Senol U, C ubuk M, Sindel M, Yildirim F, Yilmaz S, O

zkay-
nak C, Lu celi E. 2001. Anteroposterior diameter of the
vertebral canal in cervical region: comparison of anatom-
ical, computed tomographic, and plain lm measure-
ments. Clinical Anatomy 14: 1518. 10.1002/1098-
2353(200101)14:1<15::AID.-CA1002>3.0.CO;2-X.
Sholts SB, Walker PL, Kuzminsky SC, Miller K, Wa rm-
la nder SKTS. n.d.-a. Identication of group afnity from
cross-sectional contours of the human midfacial skeleton
using digital morphometrics and 3D laser scanning tech-
nology. Journal of Forensic Sciences (In press).
Sholts SB, Wa rmla nder SKTS, Flores LF, Miller K, Walker
PL. n.d.-b. Variation in the measurement of cranial
volume and surface area using 3D laser scanning tech-
nology. Journal of Forensic Sciences (In press).
Simonis C, Friess M, De troit F. 2009. Skull shapes,
maps, andmicroscribes [abstract]. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 138(Suppl 48): 240. 10.1002/ajpa.21030.
Slice DE (ed.). 2005. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthro-
pology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press: New York.
Slice DE, Unteregger C, Schaefer K, Bookstein FL. 2004.
Modelling the precision of landmark location data
[abstract]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
123(Suppl 36): 183. 10.1002/ajpa.60012.
Utermohle CJ, Zegura SL. 1981. Intra- and interobserver
error in craniometry: a cautionary tale. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology 57(3): 303310. 10.1002/ajpa.
1330570307.
Valeri CJ, Cole TM, Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. 1998. Capturing
data from three-dimensional surfaces using fuzzy land-
marks. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 107(1):
113124. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199809)107:1<113::
AID.-AJPA9>3.0.CO;2-O.
van Vark GN, Howells WW. 1984. Multivariate Statistical
Methods in Physical Anthropology. D. Reidel: Dordrecht.
von Cramon-Taubadel N, Frazier BC, Mirazo n Lahr M.
2007. The problem of assessing landmark error in geo-
metric morphometrics: Theory, methods, and modi-
cations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134(1):
2435. 10.1002/ajpa.20616.
Williams FL, Richtsmeier JT. 2003. Comparison of mandibular
landmarks from computed tomography and 3D digitizer
data. Clinical Anatomy 16(6): 494500. 10.1002/ca.10095
(In press).
Wong JY, Oh AK, Ohta E, Hunt AT, Rogers GF, Mulliken
JB, Deutsch CK. 2008. Validity and reliability of cranio-
facial anthropometric measurement of 3D digital photo-
grammetric images. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
45(3): 232239. 10.1597/06-175.1 (In press).
Wright R. 2009. Guide to using the CRANID programs
CR6aInd: for linear and neighest neighbors discriminant
analysis. Retrieved 11 May 2009 from http://www.box.-
net/shared/n9q0zgtr1y.
Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. 2004.
Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Elsevier Aca-
demic Press: London.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
3D Model and Digitiser Landmark Measurement Precision