2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Canonical Variate Analysis and Principal Component Analysis on 422 descriptive sensory studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For a comparison of MANOVA and CVA to principal component analysis, the usual way of mapping descriptive sensory data, the reader is referred to Peltier et al. ().…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For a comparison of MANOVA and CVA to principal component analysis, the usual way of mapping descriptive sensory data, the reader is referred to Peltier et al. ().…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is slightly different from standard CVA since it contrasts the between-samples covariance matrix with the interaction covariance matrix (interaction between assessor and samples) instead of the within-group covariance matrix. By doing so, CVA draws the product map based on product means with consideration of subject variability (Peltier, Visalli, & Schlich, 2015b).…”
Section: Aggregated Data In Time Intervalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). Therefore, the interpretation of the PCA was limited to the first two axes (Peltier et al, 2015) which explained the 63.5% of the total variance. But only the first two contained >20% of the explained variation (Table S3).…”
Section: Sensory Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But only the first two contained >20% of the explained variation (Table S3). Therefore, the interpretation of the PCA was limited to the first two axes (Peltier et al, 2015) which explained the 63.5% of the total variance. As indicated in Fig.…”
Section: Sensory Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%