Comparison of novel methodologies for sensory characterization

Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 365-390

  Ares, Gastón ^a   Varela, Paula ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

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

^c NOFIMA   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84952986861     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/b16853     Document Type: Chapter

References (76)

1. Abdi, H., Dunlop, J. P., and Williams, L. J. 2009. How to compute reliability estimates and display confidence and tolerance intervals for pattern classi-fiers using the Bootstrap and 3-way multidimensional scaling (DISTATIS). NeuroImage 45: 89-95.
2. Abdi, H., Valentin, D., Chollet, S., and Chrea, C. 2007. Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: DISTATIS, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference 18: 627-640.
3. Albert, A., Varela, P., Salvador, A., Hough, G., and Fiszman, S. 2011. Overcoming the issues in the sensory description of hot served food with a complex tex-ture. Application of QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training. Food Quality and Preference 22: 463-473.
4. Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Giménez, A., and Gámbaro, A. 2010a. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of choco-late milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies 25: 67-86.
5. Ares, G., Deliza, R., Barreiro, C., Giménez, A., and Gámbaro, A. 2010b. Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer percep-tion. Food Quality and Preference 21: 417-426.
6. Ares, G., Giménez, A., Barreiro, C., and Gámbaro, A. 2010c. Use of an open-ended question to identify drivers of liking of milk desserts. Comparison with pref-erence mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference 21: 286-294.
7. Ares, G., Tárrega, A., Izquierdo, L., and Jaeger, S. R. 2014. Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor con-figurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Quality and Preference 31: 135-141.
8. Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., and Gimenez, A. 2011. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 46: 1600-1608.
9. ASTM. 1992. Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA). Philadelphia, PA: ASTM Digital Library. DOI: 608 10.1520/MNL10523M.
10. Barcenas, P., Elortondo, F. J. P., and Albisu, M. 2004. Projective mapping in sen-sory analysis of ewes’ milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Research International 37: 723-729.
11. Blancher, G., Chollet, S., Kesteloot, R., Nguyen, D., Cuvelier, G., and Sieffermann, J.-M. 2007. French and Vietnamese: How do they describe texture char-acteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies. Food Quality and Preference 18: 560-575.
12. Blancher, G., Clavier, B., Egoroff, C., Duineveld, K., and Parcon, J. 2012. A method to investigate the stability of a sorting map. Food Quality and Preference 23: 36-43.
13. Brockhoff, P. B. 2003. Statistical testing of individual differences in sensory pro-filing. Food Quality and Preference 14: 425-434.
14. Bruzzone, F., Ares, G., and Giménez, A. 2012. Consumers’ texture perception of milk desserts II-Comparison with trained assessors’ data. Journal of Texture Studies 43: 214-226.
15. Bruzzone, F., Ares, G., and Giménez, A. 2013. Temporal aspects of yoghurt tex-ture perception. International Dairy Journal 29: 124-134.
16. Cadoret, M., Lê, S., and Pagès, J. 2009. A Factorial Approach for Sorting Task data (FAST). Food Quality and Preference 20: 410-417.
17. Campo, E., Ballester, J., Langlois, J., Dacremont, C., and Valentin, D. 2010. Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequency-based descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines. Food Quality and Preference 21: 44-55.
18. Campo, E., Do, B. V., Ferreira, V., and Valentin, D. 2008. Aroma properties of young Spanish monovarietal white wines: A study using sorting task, list of terms and frequency of citation. Australian Journal Grape Wine Research 14: 104-115.
19. Carmines, E. G. and Zeller, R. A. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Cartier, R., Rytz, A., Lecomte, A., Poblete, E., Krystlik, J., Belin, E. et al. 2006. Sorting procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Quality and Preference 17: 562-571.
21. Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., Abdi, H., and Valentin, D. 2011. Sort and beer: Everything you wanted to know about the sorting task but did not dare to ask. Food Quality and Preference 22: 507-520.
22. Chollet, S. and Valentin, D. 2001. Impact of training on beer flavor perception and description: Are trained and untrained subjects really different? Journal of Sensory Studies 16: 601-618.
23. Chollet, S., Valentin, D., and Abdi, H. 2005. Do trained assessors generalize their knowledge to new stimuli? Food Quality and Preference 16: 13-23.
24. Dairou, V. and Sieffermann, J.-M. 2002. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, flash profile. Journal of Food Science 67: 826-834.
25. Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P. B., and Bredie, W. L. P. 2012a. Confidence ellipses: A variation based on parametric bootstrapping applicable on Multiple Factor Analysis results for rapid graphical evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 26: 278-280.
26. Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P., Meinert, L., Aaslyng, M., and Bredie, W. 2012b. Rapid descriptive sensory methods-Comparison of Free Multiple Sorting, Partial Napping, Napping, Flash Profiling and conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference 26: 267-277.
27. Delarue, J. and Sieffermann, J.-M. 2004. 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 15: 383-392.
28. Dooley, L., Lee, Y.-S., and Meullenet, J.-F. 2010. 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 21: 394-401.
29. Falahee, M. and MacRae, A. W. 1997. Perceptual variation among drinking waters: The reliability of sorting and ranking data for multidimensional scal-ing. Food Quality and Preference 8: 389-394.
30. Faye, P., Brémaud, D., Teillet, E., Courcoux, P., Giboreau, A., and Nicod, H. 2006. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Quality and Preference 17: 604-614.
31. Guàrdia, M. D., Aguiar, A. P. S., Claret, A., Arnau, J., and Guerrero, L. 2010. Sensory characterization of dry-cured ham using free-choice profiling. Food Quality and Preference 21: 148-155.
32. Hopfer, H. and Heymann, H. 2012. A summary of projective mapping observations-The effect of replicates and shape, and individual perfor-mance measurements. Food Quality and Preference 28: 164-181.
33. Jack, F. R. and Piggott, J. R. 1991. Free choice profiling in consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 3: 129-134.
34. Jaeger, S. R., Chheang, S. L., Yin, L., Bava, C. M., Giménez, A., Vidal, L., and Ares, G. 2013. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consum-ers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product charac-terizations. Food Quality and Preference 30: 56-67.
35. Kennedy, J. 2010. Evaluation of replicated projective mapping of granola bars. Journal of Sensory Studies 25: 672-684.
36. Kermit, M. and Lengard, V. 2005. Assessing the performance of a sensory panel-panellist monitoring and tracking. Journal of Chemometrics 19: 154-161.
37. Labbe, A., Schlich, P., Pineau, N., Gilbert, F., and Martin, N. 2009. Temporal dominance of sensations and sensory profiling: A comparative study. Food Quality and Preference 20: 216-221.
38. Labbe, D., Rytz, A., and Hugi, A. 2004. Training is a critical step to obtain reliable product profiles in a real food industry context. Food Quality and Preference 15: 341-348.
39. Lawless, H. T. 1999. Descriptive analysis of complex odors: Reality, model or illusion? Food Quality and Preference 10: 325-332.
40. Lawless, H. T. and Glatter, S. 1990. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 5: 217-230.
41. Lawless, H. T. and Heymann, H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.
42. Lawless, H. T., Sheng, N., and Knoops, S. S. C. P. 1995. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference 6: 91-98.
43. Lelièvre, M., Chollet, S., Abdi, H., and Valentin, D. 2008. What is the validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Quality and Preference 19: 697-703.
44. Lelièvre, M., Chollet, S., Abdi, H., and Valentin, D. 2009. Beer-trained and untrained assessors rely more on vision than on taste when they categorize beers. Chemosensory Perception 2: 143-153.
45. Lim, J. and Lawless, H. T. 2005. Qualitative differences of divalent salts: Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Chemical Senses 30: 719-726.
46. Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., and Carr, B. T. 1999. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
47. Meillon, S., Urbano, C., and Schlich, P. 2009. Contribution of the temporal domi-nance of sensations (TDS) method to the sensory description of subtle dif-ferences in partially dealcoholized red wines. Food Quality and Preference 20: 490-499.
48. Moussaoui, K. A. and Varela, P. 2010. Exploring consumer product profiling tech-niques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21: 1088-1099.
49. Nestrud, M. and Lawless, H. 2008. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference 19: 431-438.
50. Nestrud, M. A. and Lawless, H. T. 2010. Perceptual mapping of apples and cheeses using projective mapping and sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 25: 390-405.
51. Pagès, J. 2005. 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 16: 642-649.
52. Parente, M. E., Manzoni, A. V., and Ares, G. 2011. External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers’ responses to a check-all-that-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies 26: 158-166.
53. Patris, B., Gufoni, V., Chollet, S., and Valentin, D. 2007. Impact of training on strategies to realize a beer sorting task: Behavioral and verbal assessments. In: D. Valentin, D. Z. Nguyen, and L. Pelletier (eds.), New Trends in Sensory Evaluation of Food and Non-Food Products, pp. 17-29. Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam: Vietnam National University-Ho chi Minh City Publishing House.
54. Perrin, L., Symoneaux, R., Maître, I., Asselin, C., Jourjon, F., and Pagès, J. 2008. Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire Valley. Food Quality and Preference 19: 1-11.
55. Piggott, J. 1994. Understanding flavour quality: Difficult or impossible? Food Quality and Preference 5: 157-171.
56. Piggott, J. 2000. Dynamics in flavour science and sensory methodology. Food Research International 33: 191-197.
57. Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Cordelle, S., Mathonnière, C., Issanchou, S., Imbert, A. et al. 2009. Temporal dominance of sensations: Construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time-intensity. Food Quality and Preference 20: 450-455.
58. Prescott, J. 1999. Flavour as a psychological construct: Implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Quality and Preference 10: 349-356.
59. Prescott, J., Lee, S. M., and Kim, K. 2011. Analytic approaches to evaluation modify hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference 22: 391-393.
60. Rasinski, K. A., Mingay, D., and Bradburn, N. M. 1994. Do respondents really “Mark All That Apply” on self-administered questions? Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 400-408.
61. Risvik, E., McEvan, J. A., Colwill, J. S., Rogers, R., and Lyon, D. H. 1994. Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 5: 263-269.
62. Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., and Rodbotten, M. 1997. Evaluation of sensory profil-ing and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 8: 63-71.
63. Saint-Eve, A., Paài Kora, E., and Martin, N. 2004. Impact of the olfactory qual-ity and chemical complexity of the flavouring agent on the texture of low fat stirred yogurts assessed by three different sensory methodologies. Food Quality and Preference 15: 655-668.
64. Small, D. M. and Prescott, J. 2005. Odor/taste integration and the perception of flavour. Experimental Brain Research 166: 345-357.
65. Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Melani Christian, L., and Stern, M. J. 2006. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70: 66-77.
66. Soufflet, I., Calonnier, M., and Dacremont, C. 2004. A comparison between industrial experts’ and novices’ haptic perceptual organization: A tool to identify descriptors of the handle of fabrics. Food Quality and Preference 15: 689-699.
67. Symoneaux, R., Galmarini, M. V., and Mehinagic, E. 2012. Comment analysis of consumer’s likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference 24: 59-66.
68. Tarea, S., Cuvelier, G., and Siefffermann, J.-M. 2007. Sensory evaluation of the texture of 49 commercial apple and pear purees. Journal of Food Quality 30: 1121-1131.
69. Teillet, E., Schlich, P., Urbano, C., Cordelle, S., and Guichard, E. 2010. Sensory methodologies and the taste of water. Food Quality and Preference 21: 967-976.
70. ten Kleij, F. and Musters, P. A. D. 2003. Text analysis of open-ended survey responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 14: 43-52.
71. Tomic, O., Nilsen, A., Martens, M., and Næs, T. 2007. Visualization of sen-sory profiling data for performance monitoring. LWT-Food Science and Technology 40: 262-269.
72. Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., and Abdi, H. 2012. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 47: 1563-1578.
73. van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., and Luning, P. 2006. Internal versus exter-nal preference analysis: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 17: 387-399.
74. Varela, P. and Ares, G. 2012. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characteriza-tion. Food Research International 48: 893-908.
75. Veinand, B., Godefroy, C., Adam, C., and Delarue, J. 2011. Highlight of impor-tant product characteristics for consumers. Comparison of three sensory descriptive methods performed by consumers. Food Quality and Preference 22: 474-485.
76. Yu, C. H. 2005. Test-retest reliability. In: K. Kempf-Leonard (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Vol. 3, pp. 777-784. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.