Consumer-based product characterization using Pivot Profile, Projective Mapping and Check-all-that-apply (CATA): A comparative case with Greek yogurt samples

Food Research International

Volumn 99, Issue , 2017, Pages 375-384

  Esmerino, Erick A ^a,c   Tavares Filho, Elson R ^a   Thomas Carr, B ^b   Ferraz, Juliana P ^a   Silva, Hugo L A ^c   Pinto, Letícia P F ^c   Freitas, Mônica Q ^c   Cruz, Adriano G ^d   Bolini, Helena M A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

^b Carr Consulting   (United States)

^c FLUMINENSE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY   (Brazil)

^d INSTITUTO FEDERAL DE EDUCAÇÃO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Check all that apply (CATA); Greek yogurt; Pivot Profile; Projective Mapping; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

DAIRY PRODUCTS; MAPPING;

BROAD APPLICATION; CHECK-ALL-THAT-APPLY (CATA); CLASSICAL METHODS; FOOD INDUSTRIES; GREEK YOGURT; PIVOT PROFILE; PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATIONS; SENSORY CHARACTERIZATION;

CHARACTERIZATION;

FRAGRANCE; YOGHURT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; SMELLING; TASTE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODORANTS; OLFACTORY PERCEPTION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TASTE; TASTE PERCEPTION; YOGURT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85020416043     PISSN: 09639969     EISSN: 18737145     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Akalın, A.S., Unal, G., Dinkci, N., Hayaloglu, A.A., Microstructural, textural, and sensory characteristics of probiotic yogurts fortified with sodium calcium caseinate or whey protein concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7 (2012), 3617–3628.
2. 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 22:5 (2011), 463–473.
3. Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Saldamando, L., Giménez, A., Ares, G., Comparison of consumer-based methodologies for sensory characterization: Case study with four sample sets of powdered drinks. Food Quality and Preference 56 (2017), 149–163.
4. Ares, G., Methodological challenges in sensory characterization. Current Opinion in Food Science 3 (2015), 1–5.
5. Ares, G., Antúnez, L., Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., Pineau, B. et al., 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 45 (2015), 75–86.
6. Ares, G., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Jaeger, S.R., List length has little impact on consumers' visual attention to CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference 42 (2015), 100–109.
7. Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Giménez, A.N.A., Gámbaro, A., Consumer expectations and perception of chocolate milk desserts enriched with antioxidants. Journal of Sensory Studies 25 (2010), 243–260.
8. Ares, G., de Saldamando, L., Vidal, L., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Varela, P., Polarized projective mapping: Comparison with polarized sensory positioning approaches. Food Quality and Preference 28:2 (2013), 510–518.
9. 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 40 (2015), 199–208 (Part A).
10. Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., Giménez, A., Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 22:6 (2011), 581–591.
11. Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Deliza, R., Ares, G., Comparison of intensity scales and CATA questions in new product development: Sensory characterisation and directions for product reformulation of milk desserts. Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015), 183–193.
12. 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 64 (2014), 446–455.
13. Carr, B.T., Dzuroska, J., Taylor, R.O., Lanza, K., Pansini, C., Multidimensional alignment (MDA): A simple numerical tool for assessing the degree of association between products and attributes on perceptual maps. 8th Rosemarie Pangborn sensory science symposium, 2009 (Florence, Italy).
14. Carrillo, E., Varela, P., Fiszman, S., Packaging information as a modulator of consumers' perception of enriched and reduced-calorie biscuits in tasting and non-tasting tests. Food Quality and Preference 25:2 (2012), 105–115.
15. Cruz, A.G., Cadena, R.S., Castro, W.F., Esmerino, E.A., Rodrigues, J.B., Gaze, L. et al., Consumer perception of probiotic yogurt: Performance of check all that apply (CATA), projective mapping, sorting and intensity scale. Food Research International 54:1 (2013), 601–610.
16. 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 26:2 (2012), 267–277.
17. Desai, N.T., Shepard, L., Drake, M.A., Sensory properties and drivers of liking for Greek yogurts. Journal of Dairy Science 96:12 (2013), 7454–7466.
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 21:4 (2010), 394–401.
19. Dos Santos, B.A., Bastianello Campagnol, P.C., da Cruz, A.G., Galvão, M.T.E.L., Monteiro, R.A., Wagner, R. et al., Check all that apply and free listing to describe the sensory characteristics of low sodium dry fermented sausages: Comparison with trained panel. Food Research International 76, Part 3 (2015), 725–734.
20. Esmerino, E.A., Paixao, J.A., Cruz, A.G., Garitta, L., Hough, G., Bolini, H.M., Survival analysis: A consumer-friendly method to estimate the optimum sucrose level in probiotic petit suisse. Journal of Dairy Science 98:11 (2015), 7544–7551.
21. Faye, P., Brémaud, D., Durand Daubin, M., Courcoux, P., Giboreau, A., Nicod, H., Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: An alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Quality and Preference 15:7–8 (2004), 781–791.
22. Fleming, E.E., Ziegler, G.R., Hayes, J.E., Check-all-that-apply (CATA), sorting, and polarized sensory positioning (PSP) with astringent stimuli. Food Quality and Preference 45 (2015), 41–49.
23. Fonseca, F.G., Esmerino, E.A., Filho, E.R., Ferraz, J.P., da Cruz, A.G., Bolini, H.M., Novel and successful free comments method for sensory characterization of chocolate ice cream: A comparative study between pivot profile and comment analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 99:5 (2016), 3408–3420.
24. Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Verbeke, W., Enderli, G., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Vanhonacker, F. …Hersleth, M., Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010), 225–233.
25. Jaeger, S.R., Beresford, M.K., Paisley, A.G., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Cadena, R.S. et al., Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization by consumers: Investigations into the number of terms used in CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference 42 (2015), 154–164.
26. 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 35 (2014), 32–40.
27. Jaeger, S.R., Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H.G., Emotion questionnaires: A consumer-centric perspective. Food Quality and Preference 30:2 (2013), 229–241.
28. Josse, J., Pagès, J., Husson, F., Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 53:1 (2008), 82–91.
29. van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H.C.M., Luning, P., Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference 16:3 (2005), 181–201.
30. ten Kleij, F., Musters, P.A.D., Text analysis of open-ended survey responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 14:1 (2003), 43–52.
31. Lazo, O., Claret, A., Guerrero, L., A comparison of two methods for generating descriptive attributes with trained assessors: Check-all-that-apply (CATA) vs. free choice profiling (FCP). Journal of Sensory Studies 31:2 (2016), 163–176.
32. Lelièvre-Desmas, M., Valentin, D., Sylvie Chollet, S., Pivot profile method: What is the influence of the pivot and product space?. Food Quality and Preference 61 (2017), 6–14.
33. Louw, L., Oelofse, S., Naes, T., Lambrechts, M., van Rensburg, P., Nieuwoudt, H., The effect of tasting sheet shape on product configurations and panellists' performance in sensory projective mapping of brandy products. Food Quality and Preference 40, Part A (2015), 132–136.
34. Macfie, H.J., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K., Vallis, L.V., Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 4:2 (1989), 129–148.
35. Meyners, M., Castura, J.C., Varela, P., Ares, G., (eds.) Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling, 2014, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (Book Chapter).
36. Meyners, M., Castura, J.C., Carr, B.T., Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference 30:2 (2013), 309–319.
37. Moussaoui, K.A., Varela, P., Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21:8 (2010), 1088–1099.
38. 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 19:4 (2008), 431–438.
39. 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 16:7 (2005), 642–649.
40. 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 19:1 (2008), 1–11.
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 32, Part B (2014), 160–166.
42. Risvik, E., McEwan, J.A., Rødbotten, M., Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 8:1 (1997), 63–71.
43. Santos, B.A., Pollonio, M.A.R., Cruz, A.G., Messias, V.C., Monteiro, R.A., Oliveira, T.L.C. et al., Ultra-flash profile and projective mapping for describing sensory attributes of prebiotic mortadellas. Food Research International 54:2 (2013), 1705–1711.
44. Savidan, C.H., Morris, C., Panelists' performances and strategies in paper-based and computer-based projective mapping. Journal of Sensory Studies 30:2 (2015), 145–155.
45. Schouteten, J.J., De Steur, H., De Pelsmaeker, S., Lagast, S., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Gellynck, X., An integrated method for the emotional conceptualization and sensory characterization of food products: The EmoSensory® wheel. Food Research International 78 (2015), 96–107.
46. Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J., The Comparison of Dendrograms by Objective Methods. Taxon 11 2 (1962), 33–40, 10.2307/1217208.
47. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:5 (2000), 645–665 (discussion 665–726).
48. Stone, H., Bleibaum, R.N., Thomas, H.A., Preface. Sensory evaluation practices, Fourth edition, 2012, Academic Press, San Diego.
49. 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 24:1 (2012), 59–66.
50. Thuillier, B., Valentin, D., Marchal, R., Dacremont, C., Pivot© profile: A new descriptive method based on free description. Food Quality and Preference 42 (2015), 66–77.
51. 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 47:8 (2012), 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 48:2 (2012), 893–908.
53. 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 22:5 (2011), 474–485.
54. Vidal, L., Cadena, R.S., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Varela, P., Ares, G., Stability of sample configurations from projective mapping: How many consumers are necessary?. Food Quality and Preference 34 (2014), 79–87.