Performance of Flash Profile and Napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 48, Issue , 2016, Pages 41-49

  Liu, Jing ^a   Grønbeck, Marlene Schou ^a,c   Di Monaco, Rossella ^b   Giacalone, Davide ^a,d   Bredie, Wender L P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Flash Profile; Napping; Rapid sensory methodologies; Sensory analysis; Training modification; Wine

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941584748     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. 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.
2. Ares G., Varela P. Comparison of novel methodologies for sensory characterization. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, Taylor and Francis, Bosa Roca, Hoboken. G. Ares, P. Varela (Eds.).
3. Barcenas P., Elortondo F.J.P., Albisu M. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Research International 2004, 37:723-729.
4. Byrne D.V., Bredie W.L.P., Martens M. Development of a sensory vocabulary for warmed-over flavour. Part II: In chicken meat. Journal of Sensory Studies 1999, 14:67-78.
5. Byrne D.V., O'Sullivan M.G., Dijksterhuis G.B., Bredie W.L.P., Martens M. Sensory panel consistency during development of a vocabulary for warmed-over flavour. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:171-187.
6. Dairou V., Sieffermann J.M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67:826-834.
7. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Bredie W.L.P. 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.
8. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Meinert 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.
9. Delarue J., Sieffermann J.-M. Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:383-392.
10. Escoufier Y. Le traitement des variables vectorielles. Biometrics (International Biometric Society) 1973, 29:751-760.
11. Giacalone D., Machado L., Frøst M.B. Consumer-based sensory profiling: Application of Partial Napping® for Sensory Characterization of Specialty Beers by Novices and Experts. Journal of Food Products Marketing 2013, 19:201-218.
12. 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.
13. ISO-3591 Sensory analysis - Apparatus - Wine-tasting glass 1977, International Standardization Office, Geneva, Switzerland.
14. Josse J., Pagès J., Husson F. Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2008, 53:82-91.
15. Kennedy J. Evaluation of replicated projective mapping of granola bars. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:672-684.
16. Kruskal J.B., Wish M. Multidimensional scaling: Newbury Park 1978, Sage, CA.
17. Lê S., Husson F. SensoMineR: A package for sensory data analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:14-25.
18. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
19. Liu J., Toldam-Andersen T.B., Petersen M.A., Zhang S., Arneborg N., Bredie W.L.P. Instrumental and sensory characterisation of Solaris white wines in Denmark. Food Chemistry 2015, 166:133-142.
20. Mielby L.H., Hopfer H., Jensen S., Thybo A.K., Heymann H. Comparison of descriptive analysis, projective mapping and sorting performed on pictures of fruit and vegetable mixes. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 35:86-94.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Pagès J. Direct collection of sensory distances application to the evaluation of ten white wines of the Loire Valley. Sciences des Aliments 2003, 23:679-688.
25. 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.
26. 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, 24:372-395.
27. Perrin L., Symoneaux R., Maître I., Asselin C., Jourjon F., Pagès J. Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire Valley. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:1-11.
28. Price E.J., Linforth R.S., Dodd C.E., Phillips C.A., Hewson L., Hort J., et al. Study of the influence of yeast inoculum concentration (Yarrowia lipolytica and Kluyveromyces lactis) on blue cheese aroma development using microbiological models. Food Chemistry 2014, 145:464-472.
29. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 3-900051-07-0 2010, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
30. 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.
31. Risvik E., McEwan 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.
32. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Rødbotten M. Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:63-71.
33. Sieffermann, J. M. (2000). Le profil Flash: Un outil rapide et innovant d'é valuation sensorielle descriptive. In Paper presented at the L'innovation: De l'idé eau succés - Douziè mes rencontres AGORAL. Paris, France: Lavoisier, Tec & Doc.
34. Torri L., Dinnella C., Recchia A., Næs T., Tuorila H., Monteleone E. Projective mapping for interpreting wine aroma as perceived by naïve and experienced assessors. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 29:6-15.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Williams A.A., Langron S.P. The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1984, 35:558-568.