Polarized Projective Mapping: Comparison with Polarized Sensory Positioning approaches

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 510-518

  Ares, Gastón ^a   de Saldamando, Luis ^a   Vidal, Leticia ^a   Antúnez, Lucía ^a   Giménez, Ana ^a   Varela, Paula ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

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

Author keywords

Consumer profiling; Polarized Projective Mapping; Polarized Sensory Positioning; Powdered drinks; Projective Mapping; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873671371     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 2011, 46:1600-1608.
4. 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.
5. Chrea, C., Teillet, E., & Navarro, S. (2011). Application of the polarized sensory positioning in the cosmetic area. 9th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. Toronto, Canada, 4-8 September, 2011.
6. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Bredie W.L.P. Confidence ellipses: A variation based on parametric bootstrapping applicable on Multiple Factor Analysis results for rapid graphical evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:278-280.
7. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Mejnert 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.
8. ISO Sensory analysis: General guidance for the design of test rooms, ISO 8589 1988, International Organization for Standardization, Geneve.
9. 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.
10. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
11. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
12. 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.
13. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Risvik E., McEwan 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.
18. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Rodbotten M. Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:63-71.
19. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
20. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, London.
21. 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.
22. Valentin D., Chollet S., Lelièvre M., Abdi H. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 2012, 47:1563-1578.
23. van Kleef E., van Trijp H.C.M., Luning P. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:181-201.
24. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 2012, 48:893-908.
25. Varela P., Ares G., Giménez A., Gámbaro A. Influence of brand information on consumers' expectations and liking of powdered drinks in central location tests. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:873-880.
26. 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.