ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
advertisementadvertisement
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems
Volume 82, Issues 1-2, 26 May 2006, Pages 50-58
Selected Papers from the International Conference on Chemometrics and Bioinformatics in Asia - CCBA 2004
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Article
Purchase PDF (711 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2005.05.015    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

A comparative study of point-to-point algorithms for matching spectra

Jianfeng Lia, D. Brynn Hibberta, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Stephen Fullerb and Gary Vaughnb

aSchool of Chemistry, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia bEnvironmental Forensic and Analytical Science, Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Lidcombe, Australia

Received 11 January 2005; 
revised 19 April 2005; 
accepted 10 May 2005. 
Available online 19 October 2005.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

Matching spectra is necessary for database searches, assessing the source of an unknown sample, structure elucidation, and classification of spectra. A direct method of matching is to compare, point by point, two digitized spectra, the outcome being a parameter that quantifies the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between the spectra. Examples studied here are correlation coefficient squared and Euclidean cosine squared, both applied to the raw spectra and first-difference values of absorbance. It is shown that spectra do not fulfill the requirements for a normal statistical interpretation of the correlation coefficient; in particular, they are not normally distributed variables. It is therefore not correct to use a Student's t-test to calculate the probability of the null hypothesis that two spectra are not correlated on the basis of a correlation coefficient between them. We have investigated the effect on the similarity indices of systematically changing the mean and standard deviation of a single Gaussian peak relative to a reference Gaussian peak, of changing one peak, and of changing many peaks, in a simulated 10-peak spectrum. Squared Euclidean cosine is least sensitive to changes and the first-difference methods are most sensitive to changes in mean and standard deviation of peaks. A shift of the center of a peak has a greater effect on the indices than increases in peak width, but a decrease in peak width does lead to significant changes in the indices. We recommend that if these indices are to be used to match spectra, appropriate windows should be chosen to avoid dilution by regions with no significant change.

Keywords: Matching spectra; Correlation coefficient; Euclidean cosine; Similarity index

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Theory
2.1. Similarity indices
2.2. Simulation of spectra
2.2.1. Single peak
2.2.2. Ten-peak spectra
2.2.3. Simulation based on a fast Fourier transform of real spectra
3. Experimental
4. Results and discussion
4.1. The applicability of the Student's t-test for matching spectra
4.2. Comparison of single-peak spectra
4.3. Changing a single peak in a 10-peak spectrum
4.4. Changing many peaks in a 10-peak spectra
4.5. FFT simulation based on real spectra
4.6. General discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References










Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems
Volume 82, Issues 1-2, 26 May 2006, Pages 50-58
Selected Papers from the International Conference on Chemometrics and Bioinformatics in Asia - CCBA 2004
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.