Temporal Check-All-That-Apply (TCATA): A novel dynamic method for characterizing products

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 47, Issue , 2016, Pages 79-90

  Castura, John C ^a   Antúnez, Lucía ^b   Giménez, Ana ^b   Ares, Gastón ^b  

^a Compusense Inc ^*  (Canada)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

Author keywords

CATA questions; TCATA; Temporal check all that apply; Temporal sensory method; Yogurt

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940791417     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.017     Document Type: Article

References (48)

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. In 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 12-16 August, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
2. 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.
3. Ares G., Jaeger S.R. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:141-153.
4. Ares G., Jaeger S.R., Bava C.M., Chheang S.L., Jin D., Giménez A., et al. CATA questions for sensory product characterization: Raising awareness of biases. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:114-127.
5. E 1909-13 Standard guide for time-intensity evaluation of sensory attributes (E1909-13) 2013, ASTM International, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
6. Bouteille R., Cordelle S., Laval C., Tournier C., Lecanu B., This H., et al. Sensory exploration of the freshness sensation in plain yoghurts and yoghurt-like products. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30(2):282-292.
7. 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.
8. Caul J.F. The profile method of flavor analysis. Advances in food research 1957, Vol. 7:1-40. Academic Press, New York. E.M. Mrak, G.F. Stewart (Eds.).
9. Cleveland W.S., Grosse E., Shyu W.M. Local regression models. Statistical models in S 1992, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole. J.M. Chambers, T.J. Hastie (Eds.).
10. Duizer L.M., Bloom K., Findlay C.J. Dual-attribute time-intensity measurement of sweetness and peppermint perception of chewing-gum. Journal of Food Science 1996, 61:636-638.
11. Fisher R.A. The logic of inductive inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1935, 98:39-54.
12. Frank R.A., Byram J. Taste-smell interactions are tastant and odorant dependent. Chemical Senses 1988, 13:445-455.
13. Gordin H.H. Intensity variation descriptive methodology: Development and application of a new sensory evaluation technique. Journal of Sensory Studies 1987, 2:187-198.
14. Gower J.C., Lubbe S.G., Le Roux N.J. Understanding biplots 2011, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Singapore.
15. Greenacre, M. (2006). Tying up the loose ends in simple correspondence analysis. Economics Working Papers 940, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
16. Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis in practice 2007, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 2nd ed.
17. Greenacre, M., Nenadic, O., & Friendly, M. (2014). ca: Simple, Multiple and Joint Correspondence Analysis. R package version 0.55. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ca.
18. Halpern B.P. More than meets the tongue: temporal characteristics of taste intensity and quality. Sensory science theory and applications in foods 1991, 37-105. Dekker, New York. H.T. Lawless, B.P. Klein (Eds.).
19. Hamming R.W. Error detecting and error correcting codes. Bell System Technical Journal 1950, 29:147-160.
20. Irwin J.O. Tests of significance for differences between percentages based on small numbers. Metron 1935, 12:83-94.
21. ISO (2012). Sensory analysis-General guidance for the selection, training, and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors. ISO Standard 8586:2012. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
22. Jack F.R., Piggott J.R., Paterson A. Analysis of textural changes in hard cheese during mastication by progressive profiling. Journal of Food Science 1994, 59:539-543.
23. Jaeger S.R., Cadena R.S., Torres-Moreno M., Antúnez L., Vidal L., Giménez A., et al. Comparison of check-all-that-apply and forced-choice Yes/No question formats for sensory characterisation. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 35:32-40.
24. Jaeger S.R., Giacalone D., Roigard C.M., Pineau B., Vidal L., Giménez A., et al. Investigation of bias of hedonic scores when co-eliciting product attribute information using CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:242-249.
25. Johnson R.A., Wichern D.W. Applied multivariate statistical analysis 2007, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 6th ed.
26. Kostyra, E., Baryłko-Pikielna, N., Dabrowska, U., & Wasiak-Zys, G. (2008). Possibility of simultaneous measurement of pungency and leading flavour attributes in natural food matrices - temporal aspects. In 3rd European conference on sensory and consumer research, 7-10 September, Hamburg, Germany.
27. Kuesten C., Bi J., Feng Y. Exploring taffy product consumption experiences using a multi-attribute time-intensity (MATI) method. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:260-273.
28. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
29. Lenfant F., Loret C., Pineau N., Hartmann C., Martin N. Perception of oral food breakdown. The concept of sensory trajectory. Appetite 2009, 52:659-667.
30. Majchrzak D., Lahm B., Dürrschmid K. Conventional and probiotic yogurts differ in sensory properties but not in consumers preferences. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:431-446.
31. Methven L., Rahelu K., Economou N., Kinneavy L., Ladbrooke-Davis L., Kennedy O.B., et al. The effect of consumption volume on profile and liking of oral nutritional supplements of varied sweetness: Sequential profiling and boredom tests. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:948-955.
32. 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.
33. Meyners M., Castura J.C. Check-all-that apply questions. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
34. Meyners M., Pineau N. Statistical inference for temporal dominance of sensations data using randomization tests. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:805-814.
35. Nenadic O., Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software 2007, 20(3):1-13.
36. Pecore, S., Rathjen-Nowak, C., & Tamminen, T. (2011). Temporal Order of Sensations. In 9th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 4-8 September, Toronto, ON, Canada.
37. Pineau, N., Cordelle, S., & Schlich, P. (2003). Temporal dominance of sensations: A new technique to record several sensory attributes simultaneously over time. In 5th Pangborn sensory science symposium (p. 121), July 20-24, Boston, MA, USA.
38. Pineau N., Goupil de Bouillé A., Lepage M., Lenfant F., Schlich P., Martin N., et al. Temporal dominance of sensations: What is a good attribute list?. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:159-165.
39. Pineau N., Schlich P., Cordelle S., Mathonnière C., Issanchou S., Imbert A., et al. Temporal dominance of sensations: Construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time-intensity. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:450-455.
40. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL . http://www.R-project.org/.
41. 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, 32:160-166.
42. Rossi F. Assessing sensory panelist performance using repeatability and reproducibility measures. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:467-479.
43. Seo H.-S., Lee M., Jung Y.-J., Hwang I. A novel method of descriptive analysis on hot brewed coffee: Time scanning descriptive analysis. European Food Research and Technology 2009, 228:931-938.
44. Thomas A., Visalli M., Cordelle S., Schlich P. Temporal drivers of liking. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 40:365-375.
45. Williams E.J. Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Scientific Research 1949, 2:149-168.
46. Worch T., Piqueras-Fiszman B. Contributions to assess the reproducibility and the agreement of respondents in CATA tasks. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 40:137-146.
47. Zorn S., Alcaire F., Vidal L., Giménez A., Ares G. Application of multiple-sip Temporal Dominance of Sensations to the evaluation of sweeteners. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 36:135-143.
48. Zwillinger S.A., Halpern B.P. Time-quality tracking of monosodium glutamate, sodium saccharin and a citric acid-saccharin mixture. Physiology & Behavior 1991, 49:855-862.