4.6 Article

Taste Recognition in E-Tongue Using Local Discriminant Preservation Projection

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 947-960

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2789889

关键词

Electronic tongue (E-Tongue); extreme learning machine (ELM); subspace learning; taste recognition

资金

  1. National Science Fund of China [61771079, 61403049, 61401048]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [106112017CDJQJ168817, 106112017CDJQJ168819]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electronic tongue (E-Tongue), as a novel taste analysis tool, shows a promising perspective for taste recognition. In this paper, we constructed a voltammetric E-Tongue system and measured 13 different kinds of liquid samples, such as tea, wine, beverage, functional materials, etc. Owing to the noise of system and a variety of environmental conditions, the acquired E-Tongue data shows inseparable patterns. To this end, from the viewpoint of algorithm, we propose a local discriminant preservation projection (LDPP) model, an under-studied subspace learning algorithm, that concerns the local discrimination and neighborhood structure preservation. In contrast with other conventional subspace projection methods, LDPP has two merits. On one hand, with local discrimination it has a higher tolerance to abnormal data or outliers. On the other hand, it can project the data to a more separable space with local structure preservation. Further, support vector machine, extreme learning machine (ELM), and kernelized ELM (KELM) have been used as classifiers for taste recognition in E- Tongue. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed E-Tongue is effective for multiple tastes recognition in both efficiency and effectiveness. Particularly, the proposed LDPP-based KELM classifier model achieves the best taste recognition performance of 98%. The developed benchmark data sets and codes will be released and downloaded in http://www.leizhang.tk/tempcode.html.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据