Human skeletal asymmetry. A study of directional and fluctuating asymmetry in assessing health, environmental conditions, and social status in English populations from the 7th to the 19th centuries.
R. Storm Thesis.pdf (4.089Mb)Download
Title Page Appendix.pdf (98.68Kb)Download
Insert-Code Sheet.pdf (53.44Kb)Download
Appendix 1 Craniometric Landmarks.pdf (53.25Kb)Download
Appendix 2 Measurements.pdf (4.436Mb)Download
Appendix 3 Recording Forms.pdf (342.8Kb)Download
Appendix 4 Population Outliers.pdf (783.7Kb)Download
Appendix 5 Measurement Error.pdf (457.4Kb)Download
Appendix 6 DA Descriptive Statistics.pdf (2.873Mb)Download
Appendix 7 Results from DA Comparisons.pdf (1.752Mb)Download
Appendix 8 FA Descriptive Statistics.pdf (2.461Mb)Download
Appendix 9 Results from FA Comparisons.pdf (2.078Mb)Download
Appendix 10 Chi Square Tests of Population Outliers.pdf (626.2Kb)Download
AuthorStorm, Rebecca A.
SupervisorKnüsel, Christopher J.
KeywordHuman skeletal asymmetry
Rights© 2009 Storm, R. A. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk).
InstitutionUniversity of Bradford
DepartmentDivision of Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental Sciences
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractAsymmetry is a useful tool for osteological analysis as it detects disruptions in the developmental stability of osseous structures attributed to environmental and biomechanical environments. The primary aim of this study is to establish a baseline for normal levels of asymmetry in English archaeological populations in order to distinguish between normal population variation and increased developmental instability or biomechanical stress. Directional and fluctuating asymmetry is assessed through a database of a comprehensive selection of osteological measurements throughout the skeletons of 1753 adults and subadults. The sample is from 11 archaeological sites spanning the Anglo-Saxon to the Victorian periods. The extent of developmental instability is also determined, for the first time, by employing the prevalence of population outliers. The normal range for directional asymmetry was found to be -5.79 to 6.62%, while fluctuating asymmetry was found to be 0 to 6.53%. The extent of asymmetry, however, was found to be trait specific. Deviations from normal population levels of asymmetry were found to be due to a complex mixture of biomechanical and environmental stresses influenced by age, sex, settlement type, socio-economic status, and period-specific origins of the sample populations. Possible causes of asymmetry could be discerned from comparisons of the levels of population asymmetry when placed in the context of physical activity, social networking, health, and environment developed from the historical, archaeological and osteological record.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Distinct lower visual field preference for object shapeSchmidtmann, G.; Logan, Andrew J.; Kennedy, Graeme J.; Gordon, G.E.; Loffler, G. (2015-04)Humans manipulate objects chiefly within their lower visual field, a consequence of upright posture and the anatomical position of hands and arms.This study tested the hypothesis of enhanced sensitivity to a range of stimuli within the lower visual field. Following current models of hierarchical processing within the ventral steam, discrimination sensitivity was measured for orientation, curvature, shape (radial frequency patterns), and faces at various para-central locations (horizontal, vertical, and main diagonal meridians) and eccentricities (5° and 10°). Peripheral sensitivity was isotropic for orientation and curvature. By contrast, observers were significantly better at discriminating shapes throughout the lower visual field compared to elsewhere. For faces, however, peak sensitivity was found in the left visual field, corresponding to the right hemispheric localization of human face processing. Presenting head outlines without any internal features (e.g., eyes, mouth) recovered the lower visual field advantage found for simple shapes. A lower visual field preference for the shape of an object, which is absent for more localized information (orientation and curvature) but also for more complex objects (faces), is inconsistent with a strictly feed-forward model and poses a challenge for multistage models of object perception. The distinct lower visual field preference for contour shapes is, however, consistent with an asymmetry at intermediate stages of visual processing, which may play a key role in representing object characteristics that are particularly relevant to visually guided actions.
The March of Time: Evolving Conceptions of Time in the Light of Scientific DiscoveriesWeinert, Friedel (2013)The aim of this interdisciplinary study is to reconstruct the evolution of our changing conceptions of time in the light of scientific discoveries. It will adopt a new perspective and organize the material around three central themes, which run through our history of time reckoning: cosmology and regularity; stasis and flux; symmetry and asymmetry. It is the physical criteria that humans choose ¿ relativistic effects and time-symmetric equations or dynamic-kinematic effects and asymmetric conditions ¿ that establish our views on the nature of time. This book will defend a dynamic rather than a static view of time.
The enigma of facial asymmetry: is there a gender-specific pattern of facedness?Rodway, Paul; Hancock, P.; Hardie, S.; Penton-Voak, I.; Wright, L.; Carson, D. (2005)Although facial symmetry correlates with facial attractiveness, human faces are often far from symmetrical with one side frequently being larger than the other (Kowner, 1998). Smith (2000) reported that male and female faces were asymmetrical in opposite directions, with males having a larger area on the left side compared to the right side, and females having a larger right side compared to the left side. The present study attempted to replicate and extend this finding. Two databases of facial images from Stirling and St Andrews Universities, consisting of 180 and 122 faces respectively, and a third set of 62 faces collected at Abertay University, were used to examine Smith¿s findings. Smith¿s unique method of calculating the size of each hemiface was applied to each set. For the Stirling and St Andrew¿s sets a computer program did this automatically and for the Abertay set it was done manually. No significant overall effect of gender on facial area asymmetry was found. However, the St. Andrews sample demonstrated a similar effect to Smith, with females having a significantly larger mean area of right hemiface and males having a larger left hemiface. In addition, for the Abertay faces handedness had a significant effect on facial asymmetry with right handers having a larger left side of the face. These findings give limited support for Smith¿s results but do also suggest that finding such an asymmetry may depend upon some as yet unidentified factors inherent in some methods of image collection.