‘Shape, Procrustes tangent projections and bilateral symmetry’

110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

SHAPE ANALYSIS OF SYMMETRIC STRUCTURES: QUANTIFYING VARIATION AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND ASYMMETRY (2002, methodology): “To avoid making the assumption of equal, independent, and isotropic variation at all landmarks, Mardia et al. (2000) proposed a fully multivariate test of directional asymmetry for the case of object symmetry (see also Kent and Mardia 2001).”
Corpus Callosum Shape and Neuropsychological Deficits in Adult Males with Heavy Fetal Alcohol Exposure (2002, background): “For the theorems justifying all of these arbitrary-seeming manipulations—for instance , to understand why there is not a separate centered-and-scaled Procrustes average form for each subgroup—see, for instance, Kent and Mardia (2001).”
A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21 st century (2013, methodology): “For instance, shape variation due to directional and fluctuating asymmetry can be quantified and analysed to test hypotheses of symmetry in a sample (Klingenberg and McIntyre, 1998; Mardia et al., 2000; Kent and Mardia, 2001; Klingenberg et al., 2002; Schaefer et al., 2006).”
Fluctuating asymmetry and exogenous stress in fishes: a review (2011, unknown): “…that partitioned shape variation into components of symmetric shape and of asymmetry (Bookstein 1996; Auffray et al. 1999) with a formal test for directional asymmetry (Mardia et al. 2000; Kent and Mardia 2001), providing a framework for analyses of asymmetry for two- and three-dimensional data.”