Comparison of sensory product profiles generated by trained assessors and consumers using CATA questions: Four case studies with complex and/or similar samples

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 45, Issue , 2015, Pages 75-86

  Ares, Gastón ^a   Antúnez, Lucía ^a   Bruzzone, Fernanda ^a   Vidal, Leticia ^a   Giménez, Ana ^a   Pineau, Benedicte ^b   Beresford, Michelle K ^b   Jin, David ^b   Paisley, Amy G ^b   Chheang, Sok L ^b   Roigard, Christina M ^b   Jaeger, Sara R ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

CATA questions; Consumer research; Descriptive profiling; Sensory analysis

Indexed keywords

RUBUS PHOENICOLASIUS;

EID: 84934910577     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abdi H. Congruence: Congruence coefficient, RV coefficient, and mantel coefficient. Encyclopedia of research design 2010, 222-229. Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA). N.J. Salkind, D.M. Dougherty, B. Frey (Eds.).
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. 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.
4. Ares G., Antúnez L., Giménez A., Roigard C.M., Pineau B., Hunter D.C., et al. Further investigations into the reproducibility of check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization elicited by consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 36:111-121.
5. 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.
6. Ares G., Bruzzone F., Giménez A. Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructured intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 363-370.
7. Ares G., Etchemendy E., Antúnez L., Vidal L., Giménez A., Jaeger S.R. Visual attention by consumers to check-all-that-apply questions: Insights to support methodological development. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:210-220.
8. Ares G., Jaeger S.R. Examination of sensory product characterization bias when check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions are used concurrently with hedonic assessments. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 40:199-208.
9. 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.
10. Ares G., Varela P. Comparison of novel methodologies. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, 365-389. CRC Press, Boca Raton. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
11. Beaton, D., Chin Fatt, C. R., & Abdi, H. (2013). ExPosition: Exploratory analysis with the singular value decomposition. Available at < Accessed February 2013. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ExPosition/ExPosition.pdf.
12. 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.
13. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Giménez A. Consumers' texture perception of milk desserts II-comparison with trained assessors' data. Journal of Texture Studies 2012, 43:214-226.
14. Cadena R.S., Caimi D., Jaunarena I., Lorenzo I., Vidal L., Ares G., et al. Comparison of rapid sensory characterization methodologies for the development of functional yogurts. Food Research International 2014, 64:446-455.
15. Cardello A.V., Maller O., Kapsalis J.G., Segars R.A., Sawyer F.M., Murphy C., et al. Perception of texture by trained and consumer panelists. Journal of Food Science 1982, 47:1186.
16. 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.
17. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P., Meinert L., Aaslyng M., Bredie W. 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.
18. 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.
19. Guerrero L., Gou P., Arnau J. Descriptive analysis of toasted almonds: A comparison between expert and semi-trained assessors. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 12:39-54.
20. Hayes J.E. Measuring sensory perception in relation to consumer behavior. Rapid sensory profiling techniques and related methods 2015, 53-69. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, Cambridge. J. Delarue, J.B. Lawlor, M. Rogeaux (Eds.).
21. Hayes J.E., Sullivan B.S., Duffy V.B. Explaining variability in sodium intake through oral sensory phenotype, salt sensation and liking. Physiology & Behavior 2010, 100:369-380.
22. Husson F., Le Dien S., Pagès J. Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:291-296.
23. ISO Sensory analysis: General guidance for the design of test rooms, ISO Standard 8589 2007, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
24. ISO Sensory analysis-General guidance for the selection, training, and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors. ISO Standard 8586:2012 2012, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
25. Jaeger S.R., Ares G. Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product characterisation using CATA questions bias hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 35:1-5.
26. Jaeger S.R., Chheang S.L., Jin D., Bava C.M., Gimenez A., Vidal L., et al. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:56-67.
27. Josse J., Husson F., Pagès J. Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. In IASC 07, August 30th - September 1st Aveiro 2007, International Association for Statistical Computing, Portugal.
28. Kennedy J. Evaluation of replicated projective mapping of granola bars. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:672-684.
29. Labbe D., Rytz A., Hugi A. Training is a critical step to obtain reliable product profiles in a real food industry context. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:341-348.
30. Larsen M., Poll L., Callesen O., Lewis M. Relations between the content of aroma compounds and the sensory evaluation of 10 raspberry varieties (Rubus idaeus L.). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 1991, 41(4):447-454.
31. Lawless H.T., Glatter S. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990, 5:217-230.
32. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
33. 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.
34. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25(1):1-18.
35. 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.
36. Li B., Hayes J.E., Ziegler G.R. Interpreting consumer preferences: physicohedonic and psychohedonic models yield different information in a coffee-flavored dairy beverage. Food Quality & Preference 2014, 36:27-32.
37. Lund C.M., Thompson M.K., Benkwitz F., Wohler M.W., Triggs C.M., Gardner R., et al. New Zealand Sauvignon blanc distinct flavor characteristics: Sensory, chemical, and consumer aspects. American Journal of Enology & Viticulture 2009, 60(1):1-12.
38. Makhotkina O., Pineau B., Kilmartin P.A. Effect of storage temperature on the chemical composition and sensory profile of Sauvignon Blanc wines. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2012, 18(1):91-99.
39. Manoukian E.B. Mathematical nonparametric statistics 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
40. Meyners M., Castura J.C. Check-all-that-apply questions. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, 271-305. CRC Press, Boca Raton. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
41. Moskowitz H.R., Bernstein R. Variability in hedonics: Indications of world-wide sensory and cognitive preference segmentation. Journal of Sensory Studies 2000, 15:263-284.
42. 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.
43. R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2013, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
44. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
45. Roberts A.K., Vickers Z.M. A comparison of trained and untrained judges, evaluation of sensory attribute intensities and liking of Cheddar cheeses. Journal of Sensory Studies 1994, 9:1-20.
46. Sawyer F.M., Cardello A.V., Prell P.A. Consumer evaluation of the sensory properties of fish. Journal of Sensory Studies 1988, 53:12.
47. Symoneaux R., Galmarini M.V., Mehinagic E. Comment analysis of consumer's likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:59-66.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Vidal L., Cadena R.S., Corea S., Ábalos R.A., Gómez B., Giménez A., et al. Assessment of global and individual reproducibility of projective mapping with consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:74-87.
51. Villamor R.R., Daniels C.H., Moore P.P., Ross C.F. Preference mapping of frozen and fresh raspberries. Journal of Food Science 2013, 78:S911-S919.
52. Wolters C.J., Allchurch E.M. Effect of training procedure on the performance of descriptive panels. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:203-214.