An effective hedonic analysis tool: Weak/strong points

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 643-661

  Rousset, Sylvie ^a   Martin, Jean François ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044528970     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00325.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. CALLIER, P. 1996. La cartographie des préférences. Son application en milieu industriel et son extension aux plans incomplets. Thèse de l'Université de Montpellier II.
2. CALLIER, P. and SCHLICH, P. 1995. Preference mapping in progress, pp. 283-287, 4èmes journées Agro-industrie et Méthodes Statistiques, Dijon.
3. CARDELLO, A.V., MALLER, O., KAPSALIS J.G., SEGARS, R.A., SAWYER, F.M., MURPHY, C. and MOSKOWITZ, H.R. 1982. Perception of texture by trained and consumer panelists. J. Food Sci. 47, 1186-1197.
4. Contract AIR-CT93-1757. 1996. Establishing bases for control and improvement of sensory quality of dry-cured hams in Southern European countries, third annual report, vol. 1.
5. ESCOUFIER, Y. 1973. Le traitement des variables vectorielles. Biometrics 29, 751-760.
6. GREENHOFF, K. and MACFIE, H.J. 1991. Practical applications of preference mapping, pp. 57-78, J. Agro-industrie et Ḿthodes statistiques, Nantes.
7. KAZI-AOUAL, F. 1992. Apport de la ḿthode STATIS pour ́tudier l'homoǵńit́ d'un panel, pp. 135-138, J. Agro-industrie et Ḿthodes statistiques, Montpellier.
8. KAZI-AOUAL, F. 1993. Approximations to permutation tests for data analysis. Report n°93-06. ENSA Montpellier, unit́ de Biométrie.
9. LAWLESS, H.T. 1988. Odour description and odour classification revisited. In Food Acceptability, (D.M.H. Thomson, ́d.) pp. 27-40, Elsevier Applied Science, London.
10. McEWAN, J. and SCHLICH, P. 1991/92. Correspondence analysis in sensory evaluation. Food Qual. Pref. 3, 22-36.
11. MEISELMAN, H.L, HIRSH, E.S. and POPPER, R.D 1988. Sensory, hedonic and situational factors in food acceptance and consumption. In Food Acceptability, (D.M.H. Thomson, ed.) pp. 77-87, Elsevier Applied Science, London.
12. MOSKOWITZ, H.R. 1996. Experts versus consumers: A comparison. J. Sensory Studies 11, 19-37.
13. OLSEN, S.O. 1999. Strength and conflicting valence in measurement of food attitudes and preferences. Food Qual. Pref. 10, 483-494.
14. PONS, B., ROUSSET, S., MARTIN, J.F. and FAURE, J. 1996. Cooking quality of rice: Instrumental measurements and sensory analysis, 10th International Cereal and Bread Congress, Porto Carras (Chalkidiki), Greece.
15. ROBERT, P. and ESCOUFIER, Y. 1976. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: the RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics 25, 3, 257-265.
16. ROBERTS, A.K. and VICKERS, Z.M. 1993. A comparison of trained and untrained judges' evaluation of sensory attribute intensities and liking of cheddar cheese. J. Sensory Studies 9, 1-20.
17. ROUSSET, S., MARTIN, J.F., BAYLE, M.C. and TOURAILLE, C. 1996. Etude des pŕf́rences des consommateurs de l'Europe du Sud pour le jambon sec. Viandes et Produits Carńs 77, 6, 361-364.
18. ROUSSET, S., PONS, B. and MARTIN, J.F. 1999. Identifying objective characteristics able to predict clusters produced by sensory attributes in cooked rice. J. Texture Studies 30, 509-532.
19. SCHLICH, P. 1996. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. In Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science, (T. Naes and E. Risvik, eds.) pp. 259-306, Elsevier Sciences, Amsterdam.
20. SCHLICH, P. and MCEWAN, J. 1992. Cartographie des préférences: un outil statistique pour l'industrie agro-alimentaire. Sciences des Aliments 12, 339-355.
21. WOLTERS, C.J. and ALLCHURCH, E.M. 1994. Effect of training procedure on the performance of descriptive panels. Food Qual. Pref. 5, 203-214.