Stability of sample configurations from projective mapping: How many consumers are necessary?

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 34, Issue , 2014, Pages 79-87

  Vidal, Leticia ^a   Cadena, Rafael Silva ^a   Antúnez, Lucía ^a   Giménez, Ana ^a   Varela, Paula ^b,c   Ares, Gastón ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

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

^c NOFIMA   (Norway)

Author keywords

Bootstrap; Consumer profiling; Consumer research; Sensory characterisation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893355746     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abdi H. Congruence: Congruence coefficient, RV coefficient, and Mantel coefficient. Encyclopedia of research design 2010, 222-229. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
2. Abdi H., Valentin D., Chollet S., Chrea C. Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: DISTATIS, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:627-640.
3. 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.
4. Ares G., Tárrega A., Izquierdo L., Jaeger S.R. Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:135-141.
5. 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.
6. Blancher G., Clavier B., Egoroff C., Duineveld K., Parcon J. A method to investigate the stability of a sorting map. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 23:36-43.
7. Cadoret M., Husson F. Construction and evaluation of confidence ellipses applied at sensory data. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:106-115.
8. 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.
9. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P., Bredie W. 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.
10. 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.
11. Escoufier Y. Le traitement des variables vectorielles (Analysis of vector variables). Biometrics 1973, 29:751-760.
12. Faye P., Brémaud D., Durand-Daubin D., Courcoux P., Giboreau A., Nicod A. Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: An alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:781-791.
13. Faye P., Brémaud D., Teillet E., Courcoux P., Giboreau A., Nicod H. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:604-614.
14. Gacula M.C. Descriptive sensory analysis in practice 1997, Food and Nutrition Press, Trumbull, CT.
15. Gacula M., Rutenbeck S. Sample size in consumer test and descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 2006, 21:129-145.
16. Grossi A., Søltoft-Jensen J., Knudsen J.C., Christensen M., Orlien V. Synergistic cooperation of high pressure and carrot dietary fibre on texture and colour of pork sausages. Meat Science 2011, 89:195-201.
17. Grossi A., Søltoft-Jensen J., Knudsen J.C., Christensen M., Orlien V. Reduction of salt in pork sausages by the addition of carrot fibre or potato starch and high pressure treatment. Meat Science 2012, 92:481-489.
18. Heymann H., Machado B., Torri L., Robinson A.L. How many judges should one use for sensory descriptive analysis?. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27:111-122.
19. Hopfer H., Heymann H. A summary of projective mapping observations - The effect of replicates and shape, and individual performance measurements. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:164-181.
20. Hough G., Calle M.L., Serrat C., Curia A. Number of consumers necessary for shelf life estimations based on survival analysis statistics. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:771-775.
21. Hough G., Wakeling I., Mucci A., Chambers E., Méndez Gallardo I., Alves L.R. Number of consumers necessary for sensory acceptability tests. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:522-526.
22. Kennedy J., Heymann H. Projective mapping and descriptive analysis of milk and dark chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24(2):220-233.
23. King B.M., Arents P., Moureau N. Cost/efficiency evaluation of descriptive analysis panels - I. Panel size. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:245-261.
24. Lawless H.T., Glatter S. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990, 5:217-230.
25. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
26. Lê S., Husson F. SensoMineR: A package for sensory data analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:14-25.
27. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
28. 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.
29. Libertino L.M., López Osornio M.M., Hough G. Number of consumers necessary for survival analysis estimations based on each consumer evaluating a single sample. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:24-30.
30. Louw L., Malherbe S., Naes T., Lambrechts M., Rensburg P., Nieuwoudt H. Validation of two Napping® techniques as rapid sensory screening tools for high alcohol products. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30(2013):192-201.
31. Mammasse N., Schlich P. Adequate number of consumers in a liking test. Insights from resampling in seven studies. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:124-128.
32. Mantel N. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 1967, 27:209-220.
33. Meilgaard M.C., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques 1999, CRC Press, Boca Raton. 2nd ed.
34. Moskowitz H.R. Base size in product testing: A psychophysical viewpoint and analysis. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:247-255.
35. 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.
36. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
41. Reinbach H.C., Giacalone D., Machado Ribeiro L., Bredie W.L.B., Frøst M.B. Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and Napping®. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:160-166.
42. 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.
43. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Rodbotten M. Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:63-71.
44. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: the RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
45. Ross C.F., Weller K.M., Alldredge J.R. Impact of serving temperature on sensory properties of red wine as evaluated using projective mapping by a trained panel. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27:463-470.
46. Schlich P. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science 1996, Elsevier, New York. T. Naes, E. Risvik (Eds.).
47. Shao J., Tu D. The jackknife and bootstrap 1995, Springer-Verlag, New York.
48. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, London.
49. Torri L., Dinnella C., Recchia A., Naes T., Tuorila H., Monteleone H. Projective mapping for interpreting wine aroma differences as perceived by naïve and experienced assessors. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 29:6-15.
50. 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 and Technology 2012, 47:1563-1578.
51. 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.