Weighted PLS-discriminant analysis with application to conventional sensory profiling

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 25-29

  Verdun, Stéphane ^a   Cariou, Véronique ^a   Qannari, El Mostafa ^a  

^a ONIRIS   (France)

Author keywords

Fixed vocabulary; PLS discriminant analysis; Sensory profiling; Weight assignment

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053621876     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Anzanello M.J., Fogliatto F.S., Rossini K. Data mining-based method for identifying discriminant attributes in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:139-148.
2. Barker M., Rayens W. Partial least squares for discrimination. Journal of Chemometrics 2003, 17:166-173.
3. Brockhoff P.M., Skovgaard I.M. Modelling individual differences between assessors in sensory evaluations. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:215-224.
4. Collins A.J. Scaling factors in generalised Procrustes analysis. Computational statistics. Proceedings of the 10th symposium on computational statistics 1992, Vol. 1. COMPSTAT.
5. DeGroot M.H. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1974, 69(345):118-121.
6. Granitto P.M., Biasioli F., Endrizzi I., Gasperi F. Discriminant models based on sensory evaluations: Single assessors versus panel average. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:589-595.
7. Krzanowski W.J. Principles of multivariate analysis 2000, Clarendon, Oxford.
8. Kunert J., Qannari E.M. A simple alternative to generalized procrustes analysis: Application to sensory profiling data. Journal of Sensory Studies 1999, 14(2):197-208.
9. Latreille J., Mauger E., Ambroisine L., Tenenhaus M., Vincent M., Navarro S., et al. Measurement of the reliability of sensor panel performances. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:369-375.
10. Ledauphin S., Hanafi M., Qannari E.M. Assessment of the agreement among the subjects in fixed vocabulary profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(3-4):277-280.
11. Luciano G., Naes T. Interpreting sensory data by combining principal component analysis and analysis of variance. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(3):167-175.
12. Monrozier R., Danzart M. A quality measurement for sensory profile analysis the contribution of extended cross-validation and resampling techniques. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12(5):393-406.
13. Naes T., Indahl U. A unified description of classical classification methods for multicollinear data. Journal of Chemometrics 1998, 12(3):205-220.
14. Nocairi H., Qannari E.M., Vigneau E., Bertrand D. Discrimination on latent components with respect to patterns. Application to multicollinear data. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2005, 48(1):139-147.
15. Qannari E.M., MacFie H.J.H., Courcoux P. Performance indices and isotropic scaling factors in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10(1):17-21.
16. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25(3):257-265.
17. Rossi F. Assessing sensory panelist performance using repeatability and reproducibility measures. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:467-479.
18. Rossini K., Verdun S., Cariou V., Qannari E.M., Fogliatto F.S. PLS-discriminant analysis applied to conventional sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 23(1):18-24.
19. Schlich P. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. Data Handling in Science and Technology 1996, 16:259-306.
20. Specht D.F. Probabilistic neural networks. Neural Networks 1990, 3(1):109-118.
21. Stahle L., Wold S. Partial least squares analysis with cross-validation for the two-class problem: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Chemometrics 1987, 1(3):185-196.
22. Verdun, S., Cariou, V., & Qannari, E. M. (in press). Classification en référence à une matrice stochastique. Revue des Nouvelles Technologies de l'Information.