PANCA: Panel concordance analysis

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 324-329

  Derks, Eduard P P A ^a  

^a DSM BIOTECHNOLOGY CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

PANCA; Panel consensus; PCA

Indexed keywords

EID: 73449085780     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.08.019     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Brockhoff P. Assessor modelling. Food Quality and Preference 9 (1998) 87-89
2. Brockhoff P., Hirst D., and Naes T. Analysing individual profiles by three-way factor analysis. Data handling in science and technology (1996), Elsevier pp. 307-342
3. Brockhoff P., and Skovgaard I. Modelling individual differences between assessors in sensory evaluations. Food Quality and Preference 5 (1994) 215-224
4. Dahl T., Tomic O., Wold J., and Naes T. Some new tools for visualising multi-way sensory data. Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 103-113
5. Derks, E., Westerhuis, J. A., Rubingh, C., & Smilde, A. K. (2006). Smooth principal component analysis for visualizing multivariate longitudinal data. In 8th sensometrics meeting. matforsk, Norway.
6. Derks E., Westerhuis J.A., Smilde A.K., and King B.M. An introduction to multi-block component analysis by means of a flavor language case study. Food Quality and Preference 14 (2003) 497-506
7. Dijksterhuis G. Procrustes analysis in sensory research. Data Handling in Science and Technology 16 (1996) 185-219
8. Gower J. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psyschometrica 40 (1975) 33-51
9. Hirst D., and Naes T. A graphical technique for assessing differences among a set of rankings. Journal of Chemometrics 8 (1994) 81-93
10. Jackson E. A user's guide to principal components. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics (1991), John Wiley and Sons
11. Jollife, I. (1986). Principal component analyis. Springer series in statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
12. Kermit M., and Lengard V. Assessing the performance of a sensory panel - panelist monitoring and tracking. Journal of Chemometrics 19 (2006) 154-161
13. Luciano G., and Naes T. Interpreting sensory data by combining principal component analysis and analysis of variance. Food Quality and Preference (2008)
14. Naes T. Detecting individual differences among assessors and differences among replicates in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 9 (1998) 107-110
15. In: Naes T., and Risvik E. (Eds). Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science (1996), Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
16. NEN (2008). ISO8586. General guidance for the selection, training and monitoring of assessers (draft). Technical report, Netherlands Standardization Institute.
17. Qannari E.M., Wakeling I., Courcoux P., and MacFie H.J.H. Defining the underlying sensory dimensions. Food Quality and Preference 11 (2000) 151-154
18. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
19. Smilde A., Jansen J.J., Hoefsloot H., Lamers R., van der Greef J., and Timmerman M. Anova-simultaneous component analysis (asca): A new tool for analyzing designed metabolomics data. Bioinformatics (2006)
20. Westerhuis, J., Smilde, A. (2008). .
21. Westerhuis J., Derks E., Hoefsloot H., and Smilde A.K. Grey component analysis. Journal of Chemometrics 21 (2007) 474-485
22. Wold S. Principal component analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 2 (1987) 37-52