Principal Component Analysis of Three-Mode Data by Means of Alternating Least Squares Algorithms | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

A new method to estimate the parameters of Tucker’s three-mode principal component model is discussed, and the convergence properties of the alternating least squares algorithm to solve the estimation problem are considered. A special case of the general Tucker model, in which the principal component analysis is only performed over two of the three modes is briefly outlined as well. The Miller & Nicely data on the confusion of English consonants are used to illustrate the programs TUCKALS3 and TUCKALS2 which incorporate the algorithms for the two models described.

References

Carroll, J. D. & Chang, J. J. IDIOSCAL: A generalization of INDSCAL allowing IDIOsyncratic reference systems as well as an analytic approximation to INDSCAL. Paper presented at the Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, N. J., March 1972.Google Scholar

Harshman, R. A. Foundations of the PARAFAC procedure: Models and conditions for an “explanatory” multimode factor analysis, 1970, Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar

Jennrich, R. A generalization of the multidimensional scaling model of Carroll & Chang, 1972, Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar

Kroonenberg, P. M. & de Leeuw, J. TUCKALS2: A principal component analysis of three mode data, 1977, Leiden: Department of Data Theory, University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Levin, J. Three-mode factor analysis, 1963, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Wish, M. An INDSCAL analysis of the Miller & Nicely consonant confusion data. Paper presented at meetings of the Acoustical Society of America. Houston, November, 1970.CrossRefGoogle 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

Carroll, J. D. & Wish, M. Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. In Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Atkinson, R. C. & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. II), 1974, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

d’Esopo, D. A. A convex programming procedure. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 1959, 11, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hubert, L. J. & Baker, F. B. Evaluating the symmetry of a proximity matrix. Quality & Quantity, 1979, 13, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israelsson, A. Three-way (or second order) component analysis. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 1969, 43, 29–51.Google Scholar

Meyer, R. R. The validity of a family of optimization methods. SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization, 1970, 15, 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, G. A. & Nicely, P. E. An analysis of perceptual confusion among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1955, 27, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Osgood, C. E. & Suci, G. J., Tannenbaum, T. H. The measurement of meaning, 1957, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Ostrowski, A. M. Solution of equations and systems of equations, 1966, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Penrose, R. On the best approximate solutions of linear matrix equations. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1955, 51, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rutishauser, H. Computational aspects of F. L. Bauer’s simultaneous iteration method. Numerische Mathematik, 1969, 13, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sands, R. & Young, F. W. Component models for three-way data: ALSCOMP3, an alternating least squares algorithm with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwartz, H. R. & Rutishauser, H., Stiefel, E. Numerik. Symmetrischer matrizen, 1968, Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar

Shepard, R. N. Psychological representation of speech sounds. In David, E. E. & Denes, P. B. (Eds.), Human communication. A unified view, 1972, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

Shepard, R. N. Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 373–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, P. T. Feature-testing models and their application to perception and memory for speech. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 25, 511–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Smith, P. T., & Jones, K. F. Some hierarchical scaling methods for confusion matrix analysis II. Application to large matrices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1975, 28, 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soli, S. D. & Arabie, P. Auditory versus phonetic accounts of observed confusions between consonant phonemes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1979, 66, 46–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Takane, Y., Young, F. W. & de Leeuw, J. Non-metric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tucker, L. R. Implications of factor analysis of three-way matrices for measurement of change. In Harris, C. W. (Eds.), Problems in measuring change, 1963, Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Tucker, L. R. The extension of factor analysis to three-dimensional matrices. In Gulliksen, H., Frederiksen, N. (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology, 1964, New York: Holt, Rinehardt & Winston.Google Scholar

Tucker, L. R. Relations between multidimensional scaling and three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tucker, L. R. & Messick, S. An individual difference model for multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 333–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wainer, H., Gruvaeus, G. & Blair, M. TREBIG: A 360/75 FORTRAN program for three-mode factor analysis for big data sets. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1974, 6, 53–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wainer, H., Gruvaeus, G. & Snijder, F. TREMOD: A 360/75 program for three-mode factor analysis. Behavioral Science, 1971, 16, 421–422.Google Scholar

Walsh, J. A. An IBM 709 program for factor analyzing three-mode matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24, 669–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walsh, J. A. & Walsh, R. A revised Fortran program for three-mode factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1976, 36, 169–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J. & Takane, Y. Quantifying qualitative data. In Lantermann, E. D., Feger, H. (Eds.), Similarity and choice, 1980, Bern: Huber.Google Scholar