Ideal Profile Method (IPM): The ins and outs

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 45-59

  Worch, Thierry ^a,b   Lê, Sébastien ^b   Punter, Pieter ^a   Pagès, Jérôme ^b  

^a OP and P Product Research   (Netherlands)

^b AGROCAMPUS OUEST   (France)

Author keywords

Consumer; Descriptive analysis; Ideal profiles; Multiple ideals

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867604332     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Booth D.A., Conner M.T., Marie S. Sweetness and food selection: measurement of sweetners' effects on acceptance. Sweetness 1987, Springer-Verlag, London. J. Dobbing (Ed.).
2. Brandt M.S., Skinner E.Z., Coleman J.A. Texture profile method. Journal of Food Science 1963, 28:404.
3. Cadoret, M., & Husson, F. (2012). Confidence ellipses in holistic approaches. Oral presentation in 12th European Symposium on Statistical Methods for the Food Industry, Feb.-March, Paris, France.
4. Cadoret M., Lê S., Pagès J. A factorial approach for sorting task data (FAST). Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:410-417.
5. Cadoret M., Lê S., Pagès J. Statistical analysis of hierarchical sorting data. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:96-105.
6. Cooper H.R., Earle M.D., Triggs C.M. Ratios of ideals - A new twist to an old idea. Product testing with consumers for research guidance 1989, 54-63. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. ASTM STP 1035, L.S. Wu (Eds.).
7. Dairou V., Sieffermann J.M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67(2):826-834.
8. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Meinert L., Aaslyng M.D., Bredie W.L.P. Rapid descriptive sensory methods: Comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:267-277.
9. Gazano, G., Ballay, S., Eladan, N., & Siefferman, J. M. (2005). Flash profile and flagrance research: Using the words of the naïve consumers to better grasp the perfume's universe. In ESOMAR fragrance research conference 15-17 May 2005, New York, USA.
10. Hoggan J. New product development. MBAA Technical Quarterly 1975, 12:81-86.
11. 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.
12. Husson F., Lê S., Pagès J. Confidence ellipse for the sensory profiles obtained by principal component analysis. Food Quality and preference 2005, 16:245-250.
13. Lawless H.T. Exploration of fragrance categories and ambiguous odors using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Chemical Senses 1989, 14:349-360.
14. MacFie H.J., Bratchell N., Greenhoff K., Vallis L.V. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1989, 4:129-148.
15. Moskowitz H.R. Subjective ideals and sensory optimization in evaluating perceptual dimensions in food. Journal of Applied Psychology 1972, 56:60-66.
16. Moskowitz H.R. Experts versus consumers: A comparison. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11:19-37.
17. Moskowitz H.R. Base size in product testing: a psychophysical viewpoint and analysis. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:247-255.
18. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:431-438.
19. 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.
20. Pagès J., Cadoret M., Lê S. The sorted napping: a new holistic approach in sensory evaluation. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:637-658.
21. 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.
22. Sieffermann, J. M. (2002). Flash profiling. A new method of sensory descriptive analysis. In AIFST 35th convention, July 21-24, Sidney, Australia.
23. Stone H., Sidel J., Oliver S., Woosley A., Singleton R.C. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology 1974, 28:24-34.
24. Szczesniak A.S., Loew B.L., Skinner E.Z. Consumer texture profile technique. Journal of Food Science 1975, 40:1253-1256.
25. Van Trijp H.C.M., Punter P.H., Mickartz F., Kruithof L. The quest for the ideal product: Comparing different methods and approaches. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:729-740.
26. Williams A.A., Langron S.P. The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1984, 35:558-568.
27. Worch T., Dooley L., Meullenet J.F., Punter P.H. Comparison of PLS dummy variables and Fishbone method to determine optimal product characteristics from ideal profiles. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:1077-1087.
28. Worch T., Lê S., Punter P.H. How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:309-318.
29. Worch T., Lê S., Punter P.H., Pagès J. Assessment of the consistency of the ideal profiles according to non-ideal data for IPM. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:99-110.
30. Worch T., Lê S., Punter P.H., Pagès J. Extension of the consistency of the data obtained with the ideal profile method: Would the ideal products be more liked than the tested products?. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:74-80.
31. Worch T., Lê S., Punter P., Pagès J. Construction of an Ideal Map (IdMap) based on the ideal profiles obtained directly from consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:93-104.