Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization

Food Research International

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 893-908

  Varela, Paula ^a   Ares, Gastón ^b  

^a INSTITUTO DE AGROQUÍMICA Y TECNOLOGÍA DE ALIMENTOS CSIC   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

Author keywords

CATA; Consumer profiling; Flash profiling; Free choice profiling; Napping ; Open ended questions; QDA ; Repertory grid; Sensory descriptive analysis; Sorting

Indexed keywords

CATA; CONSUMER PROFILING; DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS; FLASH PROFILING; FREE CHOICE PROFILING; OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS; REPERTORY GRIDS;

FOOD PRODUCTS; SORTING;

SENSORY PERCEPTION;

EID: 84864260653     PISSN: 09639969     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.06.037     Document Type: Review

References (96)

1. Abdi H., Valentin D., Chollet S., Chrea C., Abdi H., Valentin D., et al. Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: DISTATIS, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:627-640. (Food Quality and Preference, 20, 410-417).
2. Adams J., Williams A., Lancaster B., Foley M. Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. Minneapolis, USA, 12-16 August, 2007 2007.
3. Albert A., Varela P., Salvador A., Hough G., Fiszman S. Overcoming the issues in the sensory description of hot served food with a complex texture. Application of QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:463-473.
4. Ares G., Barreiro C., Deliza R., Giménez A., Gámbaro A. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:67-86.
5. Ares G., Bruzzone F., Giménez A. Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructured intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:363-370.
6. Ares G., Deliza R., Barreiro C., Giménez A., Gámbaro A. Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:417-426.
7. Ares G., Giménez A., Barreiro C., Gámbaro A. Use of an open-ended question to identify drivers of liking of milk desserts. Comparison with preference mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:286-294.
8. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Gimenez A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011, 46:1600-1608.
9. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:581-591.
10. Bárcenas P., Pérez Elortondo F.J., Albisu M. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Research International 2004, 37:723-729.
11. Bécue-Bertaut M., Álvarez-Esteban R., Pagès J. Rating of products through scores and free-text assertions: Comparing and combining both. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:122-134.
12. Bijmolt T., Wedel M. The effects of alternative methods of collecting similarity data for multidimensional scaling. International Journal of Research in Marketing 1995, 12:363-371.
13. Black M.B. On formal ethnographic procedures. American Anthropologist 1963, 65:1347-1351.
14. Blancher G., Chollet S., Kesteloot R., Nguyen D., Cuvelier G., Sieffermann J.-M. French and Vietnamese: How do they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:560-575.
15. Brandt M.A., Skinner E.Z., Coleman J.A. Texture profile method. Journal of Food Science 1963, 28:404-409.
16. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Giménez A. Consumers' texture perception of milk desserts II- Comparison with trained assessors' data. Journal of Texture Studies 2012, 43:214-226.
17. Busing F.M.T.A., Groenen P.J.F., Heiser W.J. Avoiding degeneracy in multidimensional unfolding by penalizing on the coefficient of variation. Psychometrika 2005, 70:49-76.
18. Cadoret M., Lê S., Pagès J. A factorial approach for sorting task data (FAST). Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:410-417.
19. Cairncross S.E., Sjöstrom L.B. Flavour profiles: A new approach to flavour problems. Food Technology 1950, 4:308-311.
20. Campo E., Ballester J., Langlois J., Dacremont C., Valentin D. Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequency-based descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:44-55.
21. Campo E., Do B.V., Ferreira V., Valentin D. Aroma properties of young Spanish white wines: A study using sorting task, list of terms and frequency of citation. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2008, 14:104-115.
22. Carrillo E., Varela P., Fiszman S. Packaging information as a modulator of consumers' perception of enriched and reduced-calorie biscuits in tasting and non-tasting tests. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 25:105-115.
23. Carrillo E., Varela P., Fiszman S. Effects of food package information and sensory characteristics on the perception of healthiness and the acceptability of enriched biscuits. Food Research International 2012, 48:209-216.
24. Cartier R., Rytz A., Lecomte A., Poblete E., Krystlik J., Belin E., et al. Sorting procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:562-571.
25. Castura J.C. Do panellists donkey vote in sensory choose-all-that-apply questions?. 8th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, July 26-30, Florence 2009.
26. Chollet S., Valentin D. Impact of training on beer flavour perception and description: Are trained and untrained subjects really different. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16:601-618.
27. Chollet S., Lelièvre Abdi, H., Valentin D. Sort and beer: Everything you wanted to know about the sorting task but did not dare to ask. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:507-520.
28. Courcoux P., Qannari E.M., Taylor Y., Buck D., Greenhoff K. Taxonomic free sorting. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 23:30-35.
29. Coxon A.P.M. Sorting data: Collection and analysis 1999, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
30. Coxon A.P.M., Davies P.M., Jones C.L. Images of social stratification 1986, Sage, London.
31. Dairou V., Sieffermann J.-M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, flash profile. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67:826-834.
32. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P., Meinert L., Aaslyng M., Bredi W. Sort and beer: Everything you wanted to know about the sorting task but did not dare to ask. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26(2):267-277.
33. Delarue J., Sieffermann J.-M. Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:383-392.
34. Dooley L., Lee Y.-S., Meullenet J.-F. The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:394-401.
35. Falahee M., MacRae A.W. Perceptual variation among drinking waters: The reliability of sorting and ranking data for multidimensional scaling. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:389-394.
36. Ferrage A., Nicod L., Varela P. How does assessors' performance influence the outcome of alternative sensory methodologies?. Eurosense 2010 - A sense of quality. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 5-8 September, 2010 2010.
37. Gacula M.C. Descriptive sensory analysis in practice 1997, Food and Nutrition Press, Trumbull, CT.
38. Gawel R., Iland P.G., Francis I.L. Characterizing the astringency of red wine: A case study. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:83-94.
39. Gower J.C. Generalised procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 1975, 40:33-50.
40. Grygorczyk, A., Lesschaeve, I., Corredig, M., & Duizer, L. (in press). Extraction of consumer texture preferences for yogurt: Comparison of the preferred attribute elicitation method to conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.017.
41. Guàrdia M.D., Aguiar A.P.S., Claret A., Arnau J., Guerrero L. Sensory characterization of dry-cured ham using free-choice profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:148-155.
42. Husson F., Le Dien S., Pagès J. Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:291-296.
43. Jack F.R., Piggott J.R. Free choice profiling in consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 1991, 3:129-134.
44. Kelly G.A. The psychology of personal constructs 1955, Norton, New York.
45. King M.C., Cliff M.A., Hall J.W. Comparison of projective mapping and sorting data collection and multivariate methodologies for identification of similarity-of-use of snack bars. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:347-358.
46. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50:537-567.
47. Lado J., Vicente E., Manzzioni A., Ares G. Application of a check-all-that-apply question for the evaluation of strawberry cultivars from a breeding program. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2010, 90:2268-2275.
48. Lassoued N., Delarue J., Launay B., Michon C. Baked product texture: Correlations between instrumental and sensory characterization using flash profile. Journal of Cereal Science 2008, 48:133-143.
49. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, 227-253. Springer, New York. 2nd edition.
50. Lawless H.T., Sheng N., Knoops S.S.C.P. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:91-98.
51. Le Dien S., Pagès J. Hierarchical multiple factor analysis: Application to the comparison of sensory profiles. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:397-403.
52. Le Fur Y., Mercurio V., Moio L., Blanquet J., Meunier J.M. A new approach to examine the relationships between sensory and gas chromatography-olfactometry data using generalized procrustes analysis applied to Six French Chardonnay wines. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 2003, 51:443-452.
53. Lelièvre M., Chollet S., Abdi H., Valentin D. What is the validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:697-703.
54. Lokki T., Pätynen J., Kuusinen A., Vertanen H., Tervo S. Concert hall acoustics assessment with individually elicited attributes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011, 130:835-849.
55. Mazzucheli R., Guinard J.X. Comparison of monadic and simultaneous sample presentation modes in a descriptive analysis of milk chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 1999, 14:235-248.
56. Meilgaard M.C., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques 1991, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 2nd edition.
57. Miller D.M., Wiley D.E., Wolfe R.G. Categorization methodology: An approach to the collection and analyses of certain classes of qualitative information. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1986, 21:135-167.
58. Modell S. Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: An assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research 2005, 16:231-254.
59. Moussaoui K.A., Varela P. Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:1088-1099.
60. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
61. Nestrud M., Lawless H. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:431-438.
62. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Perceptual mapping of apples and cheeses using projective mapping and sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:390-405.
63. Nicod L., Varela P., Ferrage A. Could too much training ever be a limitation in products' characterization? Oral presentation. Eurosense 2010 - A sense of quality. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 5-8 September, 2010 2010.
64. Pagès J. Recueil direct de distances sensorielles: Application à l'évaluation de dix vins blancs du Val-de-Loire. Sciences des Aliments 2003, 23:679-688.
65. Pagès J. Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:642-649.
66. Pagès J., Cadoret M., Lê S. The sorted napping: A new holistic approach in sensory evaluation. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:637-658.
67. Parente M.E., Manzoni A.V., Ares G. External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check-all-that-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:158-166.
68. Perrin L., Pagès J. Construction of a product space from the ultra-flash profiling method: Application to 10 red wines from the Loire Valley. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24:373-395.
69. Perrin L., Symoneaux R., Maître I., Asselin C., Jourjon F., Pagès J. Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire Valley. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:1-11.
70. Pfeiffer J., Gilbert C. Napping by modality: A happy medium between analytic and holistic approaches. Oral communication. Sensometrics 2008 2008.
71. Plaehn D. CATA penalty/reward. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:141-152.
72. Poinot P., Grua-Priol J., Arvisenet G., Rannou C., Semenou M., Le Bail A., et al. Optimisation of HS-SPME to study representativeness of partially baked bread odorant extracts. Food Research International 2007, 40:1170-1184.
73. Poirson E., Petiot J.-F., Richard F. A method for perceptual evaluation of products by naive subjects: Application to car engine sounds. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2010, 40:504-516.
74. Popper P., Heymann H. Analyzing differences among products and panelists by multidimensional scaling. Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science 1996, 159-184. Elsevier, Amsterdam. T. Naes, E. Risvik (Eds.).
75. Rasinski K.A., Mingay D., Bradburn N.M. Do respondents really mark all that apply on self-administered questions?. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:400-408.
76. Risvik E., McEvan J.A., Colwill J.S., Rogers R., Lyon D.H. Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:263-269.
77. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Rodbotten M. Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:63-71.
78. Rostaing H., Ziegelbaum H., Boutin E., Rogeaux M. Analyse de commentaires libres par la techniques des réseaux de segments. Fourth International Conference on the Statistical Analysis of Textual Data, JADT'98 1998.
79. Saint-Eve A., Paài Kora E., Martin N. Impact of the olfactory quality and chemical complexity of the flavouring agent on the texture of low fat stirred yogurts assessed by three different sensory methodologies. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:655-668.
80. Santosa M., Abdi H., Guinard J.-X. A modified sorting task to investigate consumer perceptions of extra virgin olive oils. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:881-892.
81. Schiffman S.S., Reynolds M.L., Young F.W. Introduction to multidimensional scaling 1981, Academic Press, New York.
82. Smyth J.D., Dillman D.A., Christian L.M., Stern M.J. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2006, 70:66-77.
83. Stampanoni C.R. Quantitative flavour profiling: An effective tool in flavour perception. Food and Marketing Technology 1993, February 4-8.
84. Stampanoni C.R. The quantitative profiling technique. Perfumer Flavourist 1993, 18:19-24.
85. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, London.
86. Stone H., Sidel J.L., Oliver S., Woolsey A., Singleton R.C. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology 1974, 28(11):24-33.
87. Sudman S., Bradburn M.B. Asking questions 1982, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
88. Symoneaux R., Galmarini M.V., Mehinagic E. Comment analysis of consumer's likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:59-66.
89. Tarea S., Cuvelier G., Siefffermann J.-M. Sensory evaluation of the texture of 49 commercial apple and pear purees. Journal of Food Quality 2007, 30:1121-1131.
90. Teillet E., Schlich P., Urbano C., Cordelle S., Guichard E. Sensory methodologies and the taste of water. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:967-976.
91. ten Kleij F., Musters P.A.D. Text analysis of open-ended survey responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:43-52.
92. Thomson D., Mcewan J. An application of the repertory grid method to investigate consumer perceptions of foods. Appetite 1988, 10:181-193.
93. Thuillier, B. (2007). Rôle du CO2 dans l'Appréciation Organoleptique des Champagnes-Expérimentation et Apports Méthodologiques. Thèse de l'URCA, Reims, France. Available at http://www.abt-sensory-analysis.com/docs/methode_profil_pivot.pdf.
94. Veinand B., Godefroy C., Adam C., Delarue J. Highlight of important product characteristics for consumers. Comparison of three sensory descriptive methods performed by consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:474-485.
95. Williams A., Arnold G. A comparison of the aromas of 6 coffees characterized by conventional profiling, free-choice profiling and similarity scaling methods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1985, 36:204-214.
96. Worch T., Lê S., Punter P. How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:309-318.