Polarized sensory positioning: Do conclusions depend on the poles?

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 25-32

  de Saldamando, Luis ^a   Delgado, Jenny ^b   Herencia, Pilar ^b   Giménez, Ana ^a   Ares, Gastón ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b Laboratorio de Evaluación sensorial   (Colombia)

Author keywords

Consumer profiling; Make up foundations; Polarized sensory positioning; Powdered drinks; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874424091     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. 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. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. Minneapolis, USA, 12-16 August, 2007.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Cadoret M., Lê S., Pagès J. A factorial approach for sorting task data (FAST). Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:410-417.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. ISO Sensory analysis: General guidance for the design of test rooms, ISO 8589 1988, International Organization for Standardization, Geneve.
10. Josse, J., Husson, F., & Pagès, J. (2007). Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. In IASC 07, August 30th - September 1st, 2007, Aveiro, Portugal.
11. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York. 2nd edition.
12. 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.
13. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25(1):1-18.
14. 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.
15. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0 2007, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
19. 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.
20. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: the RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
21. Schiffman S.S., Reynolds M.L., Young F.W. Introduction to multidimensional scaling 1981, Academic Press, New York.
22. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, London.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.