Measures of association between two datasets; Application to sensory data

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 40, Issue PA, 2015, Pages 116-124

  El Ghaziri, Angélina ^a,b   Qannari, El Mostafa ^a,b  

^a LUNAM UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^b CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

00 01; 99 00; Adjusted RV coefficient; Multivariate correlation coefficient; Permutation test; Procrustes similarity index; RV coefficient

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908637564     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abdi H., Valentin D., Chollet S., Chrea C. Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: Distatis, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:627-640.
2. Albatineh A.N., Niewiadomska-Bugaj M., Mihalko D. On similarity indices and correction for chance agreement. Journal of Classification 2006, 23:301-313.
3. Callier P., Schlich P. La cartographie des prfrences incompltes - validation par simulation. Sciences des Aliments 1997, 17:155-172.
4. Dairou V., Sieffermann J.-M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67:826-834.
5. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Meinert L., Aaslyng M.D., Bredie W.L.P. Rapid descriptive sensory methods - comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:267-277.
6. Escoufier Y. Le traitement des variables vectorielles. Biometrics 1973, 29:751-761.
7. Faye P., Brémaud D., Durand Daubin M., Courcoux P., Giboreau A., Nicod H. Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: An alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:781-791.
8. Faye P., Brémaud D., Teillet E., Courcoux P., Giboreau A., Nicod H. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:604-614.
9. Gower J.C. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 1975, 40:33-51.
10. Hubert L., Arabie P. Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification 1985, 2:193-218.
11. Husson, F., Josse, J., Le, S., Mazet, J. (2013). FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R. URL: r package version 1.25. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FactoMineR.
12. Jackson D.A. Protest: A procrustean randomization test of community environment concordance. Ecoscience 1995, 2:297-303.
13. Josse J., Pagès J., Husson F. Testing the significance of the rv coefficient. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2008, 53:82-91.
14. Kazi-Aoual F., Hitier S., Sabatier R., Lebreton J.-D. Refined approximations to permutation tests for multivariate inference. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 1995, 20:643-656.
15. Ledauphin S., Qannari E.M., Hanafi M. Détermination et validation d'un tableau compromis en profil sensoriel conventionnel. Revue de statistique appliquée 2006, 54:47-60.
16. Lorenzo-Seva U., ten Berge J.M.F. Tucker's congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology 2006, 2:57-64.
17. Mammasse N., Schlich P. Adequate number of consumers in a liking test. insights from resampling in seven studies. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:124-128.
18. Meyners M. Methods to analyse sensory profiling data - a comparison. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:507-514.
19. Meyners M., Kunert J., Qannari E.M. Comparing generalized procrustes analysis and statis. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:77-83.
20. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P.R., O'Hara, R.B., et al. (2013). vegan: Community Ecology Package. URL: r package version 2.0-10. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
21. Peltier C., Visalli M., Schlich P. Comparison of canonical variate analysis and principal component analysis on 422 descriptive sensory studies. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.005.
22. Pizarro C., Esteban-Díez I., Rodríguez-Tecedor S., González-Sáiz J.M. A sensory approach for the monitoring of accelerated red wine aging processes using multi-block methods. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:519-530.
23. Qannari E.M., Halliday J.H.M., Courcoux P. Performance indices and isotropic scaling factors in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 10:17-21.
24. Ramsay J.O., Berge J.T., Styan G.P.H. Matrix correlation. Psychometrika 1984, 49:403-423.
25. Rand W. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of American Statistical Association 1971, 66:846-850.
26. Reinbach H.C., Giacalone D., Ribeiro L.M., Bredie W.L.P., Bom Frst M. Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: Cata, cata with intensity and napping. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:160-166. Part B.
27. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
28. Schlich P. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. Data Handling in Science and Technology 1996, vol. 16:259-306. Elsevier. T. Ns, E. Risvik (Eds.).
29. Sibson R. Studies in the robustness of multidimensional scaling: Procrustes statistics. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1978, 40:234-238.
30. Smilde A.K., Kiers H.A.L., Bijlsma S., Rubingh C.M., Van Erk M.J. Matrix correlations for high-dimensional data: The modified rv-coefficient. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:401-405.
31. Thomsen M., Gourrat K., Thomas-Danguin T., Guichard E. Multivariate approach to reveal relationships between sensory perception of cheeses and aroma profile obtained with different extraction methods. Food Research International 2014, 62:561-571.
32. Tomic O., Forde C., Delahunty C., Ns T. Performance indices in descriptive sensory analysis - a complimentary screening tool for assessor and panel performance. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:122-133.
33. Vidal L., Cadena R.S., Antùnez L., Giménez A., Varela P., Ares G. Stability of sample configurations from projective mapping: How many consumers are necessary?. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 34:79-87.
34. Williams A.A., Langron S.P. The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1984, 35:558-568.
35. Worch T. Prefmfa, a solution taking the best of both internal and external preference mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:180-191.