BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Principal Components Analysis, In the behavioural sciences
Orbz
post Oct 17, 2007, 08:31 PM
Post #1


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 301
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
From: Australia
Member No.: 6770



Is there a specific way PCAs are meant to be done? It seems as though the idea of the PCA is to try as many different ways as possible until you get something reasonable out of it. Then make post-hoc explanations as to why you did it in that particular way. This does not seem like a satisfactory method to go about it.

Why would you use, for example, an equamax, varimax or quartimax rotation? Are there any specific methods for determing what style of rotation you should use, other than it works?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Oct 17, 2007, 09:22 PM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



My expection is that all of the different methods should give you the same results as the principal components have a precise mathematical meaning: the first PC is the dimension that maximizes the variance, the second PC is the dimension that maximizes the variance once the first PC is subtracted away (and thus made orthogonal to it), etc...

It's possible some methods are more efficient than others, or more robust.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd November 2017 - 08:51 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles