"All-In-One Test"(AI1): A rapid and easily applicable approach to consumer product testing

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 108-119

  Giacalone, Davide ^a   Bredie, Wender L P ^a   Frøst, Michael Bom ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Beer; Check all that apply; Consumer research; L PLSR; Preference mapping; Sensory perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874309013     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abdi, H., Valentin, D., Chollet, S., & Chrea, C. (2007). Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: DISTATIS, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 627-640.
2. Adams, J., Williams, A., Lancaster, B., & Foley, M. (2007). Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. In 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium, 12-16 August 2007, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
3. ®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 463-473.
4. Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Gimenez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2010). Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 67-86.
5. Ares, G., Deliza, R., Barreiro, C., Gimenez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2010). Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 417-426.
6. Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., & Gimenez, A. (2011). Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 581-591.
7. Buck, D. (2003). Solicited commentary to Garber et al.: Measuring consumer response to food products. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 37-38.
8. Cardello, A. V. (2003). Ideographic sensory testing vs. nomothetic sensory research for marketing guidance: Comments on Garber et al. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 27-30.
9. Cardello, A. V., Maller, O., Kapsalis, J. G., Segars, R. A., Sawyer, F. M., Murphy, C., et al. (1982). Perception of texture by trained and consumer panelists. Journal of Food Science, 47, 1186-1197.
10. Chollet, S., & Valentin, D. (2007). Impact of training on beer flavor perception and description: Are trained and untrained subjects really different? Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 601-618.
11. Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 491-504.
12. Civille, G. V., & Heylmun, J. (2003). Commentary on Garber et al. paper for Food Quality and Preference journal. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 31-32.
13. Clapperton, J. F., & Piggott, J. R. (1979). Flavour characterization by trained and untrained assessors. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 85, 275-277.
14. Daems, V., & Delvaux, F. (1997). Multivariate analysis of descriptive sensory data on 40 commercial beers. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 373-380.
15. Dairou, J., & Sieffermann, J. (2002). A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science, 67, 826-834.
16. Dijksterhuis, G. B. (2006). Diversity in methods and methods' merits. In Invited keynote at "A sense of diversity", second European conference on sensory and consumer science of food and beverages, 26-29 September 2006, The Hague, The Netherlands.
17. Dooley, L., Lee, Y., & Meullenet, J. (2010). 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, 21, 394-401.
18. Earthy, P. J., MacFie, H. J. H., & Hedderley, D. (1997). Effect of question order on sensory perception and preference in central location trials. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 215-237.
19. Escofier, B., & Pagès, J. (1994). Multiple factor analysis (AFMULT package). Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 18, 121-140.
20. Frøst, M. B. (2006). Liking and exposure: First, second and tenth time around. Physiology & Behavior, 89, 47-52.
21. Frøst, M. B., & Giacalone, D. (2011). Using PLS-regression for verification of product differences and important variables in a consumer sensory profiles on beer obtained by a check-all-that-apply (CATA) technique. In 9th Pangborn sensory science symposium, 4-8 September 2011, Toronto, Canada.
22. Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. M., & Starr, R. G. (2003). Measuring consumer response to food products. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 3-15.
23. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York, NY: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
24. Grunert, K. G., Jensen, B. B., Sonne, A., Brunsø, K., Byrne, D. V., Clausen, C., et al. (2008). User-oriented innovation in the food sector: Relevant streams of research and an agenda for future work. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 590-602.
25. Hough, G. (1998). Experts versus consumers: A critique. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 147-154.
26. Husson, F., Le Dien, S., & Pagès, J. (2001). Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 291-296.
27. Jentsch, M. (2007). Top-fermented beer specialties in focus. Brauwelt International, 25, 332-334.
28. Köster, E. P. (1981). Sensory evaluation in a "natural environment". In P. Schreier (Ed.), Flavour'81 (pp. 93-100). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
29. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213-236.
30. Laugesen, J. L. (2007). Katim v. 1.0. Matlab-based software for 2k-factorial block design for images, Sensory Science Group, Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
31. Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food. In Principles and practices. New York, NY: Springer.
32. Lengard, V., & Kermit, M. (2006). 3-Way and 3-block PLS regression in consumer preference analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 234-242.
33. Lévy, C. M., MacRae, A., & Köster, E. P. (2006). Perceived stimulus complexity and food preference development. Acta Psychologica, 123, 394-413.
34. MacFie, H. J., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, N. K., & Vallis, I. V. (1989). Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, 129-148.
35. Martens, H., Anderssen, E., Flatberg, A., Gidskehaug, L. H., Høy, M., Westad, F., et al. (2005). Regression of a data matrix on descriptors of both its rows and of its columns via latent variables: L-PLSR. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48, 103-123.
36. Martens, H., Høy, M., Westad, F., Folkenberg, D., & Martens, M. (2001). Analysis of designed experiments by stabilised PLS Regression and jack-knifing. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 58, 151-170.
37. Martens, H., & Martens, M. (2000). Modified jack-knife estimation of parameter uncertainty in bilinear modelling by partial least squares regression (PLSR). Food Quality and Preference, 11, 5-16.
38. Martens, H., & Martens, M. (2001). Multivariate analysis of quality. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
39. Martens, M., Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., & Martens, H. (2007). The use of partial least squares methods in new food product development. In H. J. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-led food product development. Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing.
40. Martens, M., & Tschudi, F. (2010). Multivariate psychophysics, multivariate data: Human senses and their measurement. Biological Theory, 5, 337-343.
41. McBride, R. L. (1990). Three generations of sensory evaluation. In R. L. McBride & H. J. MacFie (Eds.), Psychological Basis of Sensory Evaluation. London, England: Elsevier Applied Science.
42. Meilgaard, M. C. (1982). Prediction of flavor differences between beers from their chemical composition. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 30, 1009-1017.
43. Meiselman, H. L. (1993). Critical evaluation of sensory techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 33-40.
44. Meiselman, H. L. (1994). Bridging the gap between sensory evaluation and market research. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 5, 396-398.
45. Meiselman, H. L. (2008). Experiencing food products within a physical and social context. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
46. Mejlholm, O., & Martens, M. (2006). Beer identity in Denmark. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 108-115.
47. Mela, D. J. (1989). A comparison of single and concurrent evaluations of sensory and hedonic attributes. Journal of Food Science, 54, 1098-1100.
48. Moskowitz, H. R. (1994). Food concepts and products: Just in time development. Trumbull, CT: Food and Nutrition Press.
49. Moskowitz, H. R. (1996). Experts versus consumers: A comparison. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 19-37.
50. Moskowitz, H. R. (1997). Base size in product testing: A psychophysical viewpoint and analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 247-255.
51. Moskowitz, H. R. (1998). Consumers versus experts in the light of psychophysics: A reply to Hough. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 291-298.
52. Moskowitz, H. R. (1999). Improving the "actionability"of product tests: Understanding and using relations among liking, sensory, and directional attributes. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 19-37.
53. Moskowitz, H. R., & Chandler, J. (1979). Notes on consumer oriented sensory evaluation. Journal of Food Quality, 2, 269-276.
54. Moussaoui, K. A., & Varela, P. (2010). Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1088-1099.
55. Muñoz, A. M. (2003). Descriptive panels/experts versus consumers. In H. R. Moskowitz, A. M. Muñoz, & M. C. Gacula, Jr. (Eds.), Viewpoints and controversies in sensory science and consumer product testing. Trumbull, CT: Food and Nutrition Press.
56. Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M., & Baxter, I. A. (2001). Descriptive analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International, 34, 461-471.
57. Parente, M. E., Ares, G., & Manzoni, A. V. (2010). Application of two consumers profiling techniques to cosmetic emulsions. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 685-705.
58. Parente, M. E., Manzoni, A. V., & Ares, G. (2011). External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check-allthat-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 158-166.
59. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Ares, G., Alcaide-Marzal, J., & Diego-Más, J. A. (2011). Comparing older and younger users' perception of mobile phones and watches using CATA questions and preference mapping on the design characteristics. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 1-12.
60. Plaehn, D., & Lundahl, D. S. (2006). An L-PLS preference cluster analysis on French consumers hedonics to fresh tomatoes. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 243-256.
61. Popper, R., Rosenstock, W., Schraidt, M., & Kroll, B. J. (2004). The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 853-858.
62. Prescott, J., Lee, S. M., & Kim, K. (2011). Analytic approaches to evaluation modify hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 391-393.
63. Puyares, V., Ares, G., & Carrau, F. (2010). Searching a specific bottle for Tannat wine using a check-all-that apply question and conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 684-691.
64. R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
65. Rasinski, K. A., Mingay, D., & Bradburn, N. M. (1994). Do respondents really "mark all that apply"on self-administered questions? Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 400-408.
66. ®. In A Sense of Inspiration - 5th European conference on sensory and consumer research, 9-12 September 2012, Bern, Switzerland.
67. Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J. S., Rogers, R., & Lyon, D. H. (1994). Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 263-269.
68. Schutz, H. G. (1999). Consumer data-sense and nonsense. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 245-251.
69. Schutz, H. G. (1988). Beyond preference: Appropriateness as a measure of contextual acceptance of food. In D. M. H. Thomson (Ed.), Food acceptability. New York: Elsevier.
70. Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. K. (2010). Consumer behaviour. In A European perspective. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.
71. Statistics Denmark. Sales of alcohol and tobacco subject to excises duties by type. Available from http://statistikbanken.dk/ALKO4. (Retrieved 20 September 2011).
72. Stewart-Knox, B., & Mitchell, P. (2003). What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development? Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14, 58-64.
73. Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (1993). Sensory evaluation practices (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
74. Thybo, A. K., Kühn, B. F., & Martens, H. (2003). Explaining children's preferences for apples using instrumental, sensory and demographic/behavioural data. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 53-63.
75. van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 181-201.
76. van Trijp, H. C. M., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (1995). Sensory analysis in marketing practice: Comparison and integration. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 127-147.
77. Vickers, Z. M., Christensen, C. M., Fahrenholtz, S. K., & Gengler, I. M. (1993). Effect of questionnaire design and the number of samples tasted on hedonic ratings. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 189-200.
78. Wansink, B. (2003). Response to "Measuring consumer responses to food products". Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 23-26.
79. Williams, A. A., & Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, 558-568.
80. Worch, T., Lê, S., & Punter, P. (2010). How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 309-318.