A comparison of generalised procrustes analysis and multiple factor analysis for projective mapping data

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 43, Issue , 2015, Pages 34-46

  Tomic, O ^a   Berget, I ^b   Naes T ^b,c  

^a NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^b NOFIMA   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Consumer test; Generalised procrustes analysis; GPA; MFA; Multiblock method; Multiple factor analysis; Napping; Projective mapping; RV coefficient

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923284209     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abdi H., Williams L.J., Valentin D. Multiple factor analysis: Principal component analysis for multitable and multiblock data sets. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2013, 5:149-179.
2. Ares G., Antúnez L., Giménez A., Roigard C.M., Pineau B., Hunter D.C., et al. Further investigations into the reproducibility of check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization elicited by consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 36:111-121.
3. Cadoret M., Husson F. Construction and evaluation of confidence ellipses at sensory data. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:106-115.
4. Carroll J.D., Chang J.J. Analysis of individual differences in multi-dimensional scaling via n-way generalization of Eckhart-Yong decomposition. Psychometrika 1970, 35:283-319.
5. Dahl T., Næs T. Outlier and group detection in sensory analysis using hierarchical clustering and the Procrustes distance. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(3):195-208.
6. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Meinert L., Aaslyng M.D., Bredie W.L. 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.
7. Dijksterhuis G.B., Heiser W.J. The role of permutation tests in exploratory multivariate data analysis. Food Quality and preference 1995, 6:263-270.
8. Dijksterhuis G.B. Procrustes analysis in sensory research. Multivariate analysis of data from sensory science 1996, Elsevier, Amsterdam. T. Næs, E. Risvis (Eds.).
9. Escofier B., Pagès J. Multiple factor analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 1994, 18:121-140.
10. Garbez M., Galopin G., Sigogne M., Favre P., Demontes-Mainard S., Symoneaux R. Assessing the visual aspect of rotating virtual rose bushes by a labelled sorting task. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.008.
11. Gower J.C. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 1975, 40:33-51.
12. Gower J.C., Dijksterhuis G.B. Procrustes problems 2004, Oxford University Press, UK.
13. Husson, F. (2013). Data sets. Accessed 07.12.2013. http://math.agrocampus-ouest.fr/infoglueDeliverLive/membres/Francois.Husson/data.sets.
14. Kennedy J. Evaluation of replicated projective mapping of granola bars. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:672-684.
15. King B., Arents P. A statistical test of consensus obtained from Generalized Procrustes Analysis of sensory data. Journal of Sensory Studies 1991, 6:37-48.
16. Lawless H.T., Glatter S. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990, 5:217-230.
17. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
18. Louw E., Oelofse S., Næs T., Lambrechts M., Rensburg P.V., Nieuwoudt H. Trained sensory panellists' response to product alcohol content in the projective mapping task: Observations on alcohol content, product complexity and prior knowledge. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 34:37-44.
19. Martens H., Næs T. Multivariate calibration 1989, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
20. Næs T., Brockhoff P.B., Tomic O. Statistics for sensory and consumer science 2010, Wiley, Chichester.
21. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:431-438.
22. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H. Recovery of subsampled dimensions and configurations derived from napping data by MFA and MDS. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics 2011, 73:1266-1278.
23. Oliphant T.E. Python for scientific computing. Computing in Science and Engineering 2007, 9:10-20.
24. Pagès J. Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:642-649.
25. Perrin L., Symoneaux R., Maitre I., Asselin C., Jourjon F., Pagès J. Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the napping procedure: Case of ten wines from loire valley. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:1-11.
26. Ramsey J.O., ten Berge J., Styan G.P.H. Matrix correlation. Psychometrika 1984, 49:403-423.
27. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Colwill J.S., Rogers R., Lyon D.H. Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:263-269.
28. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Rødbotten M. Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:63-71.
29. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
30. Schlich P. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. Multivariate analysis of data from sensory science 1996, Elsevier, Amsterdam. T. Næs, E. Risvis (Eds.).
31. Smilde A.K., Westerhuis J.A., de Jong S. A framework for sequential multiblock components methods. Journal of Chemometrics 2003, 17:323-337.
32. Smilde A.K., Kiers H.A.L., Bijlsma S., Rubingh C.N., van Erk M.J. Matrix correlations for high-dimensional data: The modified RV-coefficient. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:401-405.
33. Tomic O., Forde C., Delahunty C., Næs T. Performance indices in descriptive sensory analysis - A complimentary screening tool for assessor and panel performance. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:122-133.
34. Tucker L.R. The extension of factor analysis in three-dimensional matrices. Contributions to mathematical psychology 1964, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. N. Frederiksen, H. Gulliksen (Eds.).
35. Valentin D., Chollet S., Lelièvre M., Abdi H. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2012, 47:1563-1578.
36. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 2012, 48:893-908.
37. Varela P., Ares G. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis group, FL, USA.
38. Vidal L., Cadena R.S., Correa S., Ábalos R.A., Gómez G., Giménez A., et al. Assessment of global and individual reproducibility of projective mapping with consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:74-87.
39. Wakeling I., Raats M., MacFie H.M. A new significance test for consensus in generalized Procrustes analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 1992, 7:91-96.
40. Williams A.A., Arnold G.M. A comparison of the aromas of six coffees characterised by coventional profiling, free-choice profiling and similarity scaling methods. Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 1985, 36:204-214.
41. Xia X.-Q., McClelland M., Wang Y. PypeR, a Python package for using R in Python. Journal of Statistical Software 2010, 35:1-8.