Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data : consequences and an alternative

By Roger Mundry, Christina Sommer. 2007

308 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

‘The bone is mine’: affective and referential aspects of dog growls (2010, methodology): “Our sample of growls in its present form and size is not suitable for a detailed acoustical analysis (for example permuted discriminant function analysis, see Mundry & Sommer 2007), which could prove the existence of distinct growl types in the different contexts.”
Food-associated calling sequences in bonobos. (2009, methodology): “Since the acoustic data for food-associated calls were two-factorial (caller ID; call type), it has been argued that conventional DFA does not allow for a valid estimation of the overall significance of discriminability (Mundry & Sommer 2007).”
Learned vocal group signatures in the polygynous bat Saccopteryx bilineata (2012, methodology): “We estimated the significance of the classification success by using two-tailed binomial tests (following Mundry & Sommer 2007).”
The alarm call system of wild black-fronted titi monkeys, Callicebus nigrifrons (2012, methodology): “Therefore, we used a permutated discriminant function analysis (pDFA), using a macro written by Mundry and Sommer (2007), to estimate the cross-validated significance of the number of correctly classified calls.”