Check-all-that-apply (CATA), sorting, and polarized sensory positioning (PSP) with astringent stimuli

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 45, Issue , 2015, Pages 41-49

  Fleming, Erin E ^a   Ziegler, Gregory R ^a   Hayes, John E ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Astringency; Organic acids; Perceptual maps; Polyphenols; Rapid methods; Rapid profiling; Salts

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930677420     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abdi H., Williams L.J., Valentin D. Multiple factor analysis: Principal component analysis for multitable and multiblock data sets. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2013, 5:149-179.
2. Ares G., Barreiro C., Deliza R., Giménez A., Gambaro 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., et al. Polarized projective mapping: Comparison with polarized sensory positioning approaches. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:510-518.
4. ASTM. (1991). Standard terminology relating to sensory evaluation of materials and products. Annual book of ASTM Standards 15.07-end use products (E 253-91a, pp. 1-3). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing Materials.
5. Bennett S.M., Hayes J.E. Differences in the chemesthetic subqualities of capsaicin, ibuprofen, and olive oil. Chemical Senses 2012, 37:471-478.
6. Berg H., Filipello F., Hinreiner E., Webb A. Evaluation of thresholds and minimum difference concentrations for various constituents of wines. 1. Water solutions of pure substances. Food Technology 1955, 9:23-26.
7. Breslin P.A.S., Gilmore M.M., Beauchamp G.K., Green B.G. Psychophysical evidence that oral astringency is a tactile sensation. Chemical Senses 1993, 18:405-417.
8. Byrnes N.K., Nestrud M.A., Hayes J.E. Perceptual Mapping of Chemesthetic Stimuli in Naive Assessors. Chemosensory Perception 2015, 10.1007/s12078-015-9178-7.
9. Cadena R.S., et al. Comparison of rapid sensory characterization methodologies for the development of functional yogurts 2014, Food Research International.
10. Cadoret M., Lê S., Pagès J. A factorial approach for sorting task data. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:410-417.
11. Cartier R., 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.
12. Chambers E., Wolf M.B. Sensory testing methods 1996, American Society for Testing and Materials.
13. Coxon A.P.M. Sorting data: Collection and analysis 1999, Sage.
14. De Leeuw J., Mair P. Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R 2011, Department of Statistics, UCLA.
15. de Saldamando L., Delgado J., Herencia P., Giménez A., Ares G. Polarized sensory positioning: Do conclusions depend on the poles?. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 29:25-32.
16. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Meinert L., Aaslyng M.D., Bredie W.L. 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.
17. Dooley L., Lee Y.-S., Meullenet J.-F. 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 2010, 21:394-401.
18. Falahee M., MacRae A.W. Perceptual variation among drinking waters: The reliability of sorting and ranking data for multidimensional scaling. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:389-394.
19. Gawel R., Iland P.G., Francis I.L. Characterizing the astringency of red wine: A case study. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:83-94.
20. Gawel R., Oberholster A., Francis I.L. A 'Mouth-feel Wheel': Terminology for communicating the mouth-feel characteristics of red wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2000, 6:203-207.
21. Green B.G. Oral astringency: A tactile component of flavor. Acta Psychologica 1993, 84:119-125.
22. Joslyn M., Goldstein J.L. Astringency of fruits and fruit products in relation to phenolic content. Advances in Food Research 1964, 13:179-217.
23. Kallithraka S., Bakker J., Clifford M.N. Evaluation of bitterness and astringency of (+)-catechin and (-)-epicatechin in red wine and model solution. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:25-37.
24. Kielhorn S., Thorngate J.H. Oral sensations associated with the flavan-3-ols (+)-catechin and (-)-epicatechin. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:109-116.
25. King M., 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.
26. Lawless H.T. Quantitative sensory analysis: Psychophysics, models and intelligent design 2013, John Wiley & Sons.
27. Lawless H.T., Glatter S., Hohn C. Context-dependent changes in the perception of odor quality. Chemical Senses 1991, 16:349-360.
28. Lawless H.T., Horne J., Giasi P. Astringency of organic acids is related to pH. Chemical Senses 1996, 21:397-403.
29. Lawless H.T., Sheng N., Knoops S.S. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:91-98.
30. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
31. Lê S., Pagès J., Husson F. Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: Application to a cross-cultural study. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:179-184.
32. Lee C.B., Lawless H.T. Time-course of astringent sensations. Chemical Senses 1991, 16:225-238.
33. 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.
34. Lim J., Lawless H.T. Qualitative differences of divalent salts: Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Chemical Senses 2005, 30:719-726.
35. Meyners M., Castura J.C., Carr B.T. Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:309-319.
36. Miller D.M., Wiley D.E., Wolfe R.G. Categorization methodology: An approach to the collection and analysis of certain classes of qualitative information. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1986, 21:135-167.
37. Murray J., Delahunty C., Baxter I. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
38. Murtagh F. Multidimensional clustering algorithms. Compstat Lectures 1985, Physika Verlag, Vienna, p. 1.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Peleg H., Bodine K.K., Noble A.C. The influence of acid on astringency of alum and phenolic compounds. Chemical Senses 1998, 23:371-378.
42. Rasinksi K.A., Mingay D., Bradburn N.M. Do respondents really "mark all that apply" on self-administered questions?. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:400-408.
43. Reinbach H.C., Giacalone D., Ribeiro L.M., Bredie W.L.P., Frøst M.B. Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and Napping®. Food Quality and Preference 2014, Part B(3):160-166.
44. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 257-265.
45. Rodriguez M., Albertengo L., Vitale I., Agullo E. Relationship between astringency and chitosan-saliva solutions turbidity at different pH. Journal of Food Science 2003, 68:665-667.
46. Rubico S.M., McDaniel M.R. Sensory evaluation of acids by free-choice profiling. Chemical Senses 1992, 17:273-289.
47. Sinopoli D.A., Lawless H.T. Taste properties of potassium chloride alone and in mixtures with sodium chloride using a check-all-that-apply method. Journal of Food Science 2012, 77:S319-S322.
48. Sowalsky R.A., Noble A.C. Comparison of the effects of concentration, pH and anion species on astringency and sourness of organic acids. Chemical Senses 1998, 23:343-349.
49. 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.
50. Thomas C.J.C., Lawless H.T. Astringent subqualities in acids. Chemical Senses 1995, 20:593-600.
51. Valentin D., Chollet S., Lelievre 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.
52. 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.