Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T09:40:13.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generalized Procrustes Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. C. Gower
J. C. Gower*
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Suppose Pi(i) (i = 1, 2, ..., m, j = 1, 2, ..., n) give the locations of mn points in p-dimensional space. Collectively these may be regarded as m configurations, or scalings, each of n points in p-dimensions. The problem is investigated of translating, rotating, reflecting and scaling the m configurations to minimize the goodness-of-fit criterion Σi=1m Σi=1n Δ2(Pj(i)Gi), where Gi is the centroid of the m points Pi(i) (i = 1, 2, ..., m). The rotated positions of each configuration may be regarded as individual analyses with the centroid configuration representing a consensus, and this relationship with individual scaling analysis is discussed. A computational technique is given, the results of which can be summarized in analysis of variance form. The special case m = 2 corresponds to Classical Procrustes analysis but the choice of criterion that fits each configuration to the common centroid configuration avoids difficulties that arise when one set is fitted to the other, regarded as fixed.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 33 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banfield, C. F. & Harries, J. M. A technique for comparing judges' performance in sensory tests. J. Food Technology (In press).Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. & Chang, J. J.. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 283–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckart, V. & Young, G.. The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika, 1935, 1, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, J. C.. Statistical methods of comparing different multivariate analyses of the same data. In Hodson, F. R., Kendall, D. G., Tautu, P. (Eds.), Mathematics in the Archaeological & Historical Sciences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press. 1971, 138–149.Google Scholar
Gower, J. C. The determinant of an orthogonal matrix. Algorithm AS 82. Applied Statistics, (In press) 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruvaeus, G. T.. A general approach to Procrustes pattern rotation. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristof, W. & Wingersky, B. Generalization of the orthogonal Procrustes rotation procedure to more than two matrices, 1971. Proceedings, 79th Annual Convention, A. P. A., 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzanowski, W. J.. A comparison of some distance measures applicable to multinomial data, using a rotational fit technique. Biometrics, 1971, 27, 1062–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. and Members of the Rothamsted Statistics Department. Genstat Reference Manual, Second Edition, Edinburgh: Program Library Unit, Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre, 1973.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W., Williams, D. R., Harries, J. M. & Ryan, P. O. Material, measurements, jointing and tissue separation. Journal of Agricultural Science, (In press).Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W., Williams, D. R., Harries, J. M. & Ryan, P. O. The use of regression equations to estimate total tissue components from observations on intact and quartered sides and partial dissection data. Journal of Agricultural Science, (In press).Google Scholar
Schönemann, P. H.. On two-sided Procrustes problems. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schönemann, P. H. &Carroll, R. M.. Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar