Analyzing sensory data with R

Analyzing Sensory Data with R

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 1-353

  Lê, Sébastien ^a   Worch, Thierry ^b  

^a AGROCAMPUS OUEST   (France)

^b Qi Statistics   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85054255842     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/b17502     Document Type: Book

References (218)

1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2013). lme4: linear mixede effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.4.
2. Bi, J. (2003). Agreement and reliability assessments for performance of sensory descriptive panel. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18, (1), 61-76.
3. Brockhoff, P. M. (1998). Assessor modelling. Food Quality and Preference, 9, (3), 87-89.
4. Brockhoff, P. (2001). Sensory profile average data: combining mixed model ANOVA with measurement error methodology. Food Quality and Preference, 12, (5), 413-426.
5. Brockhoff, P. B. (2003). Statistical testing of individual differences in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference, 14, (5), 425-434.
6. Brockhoff, P. M., Hirst, D., & Naes, T. (1996). Analysing individual profiles by three-way factors analysis. In T. Naes & E. Risvik (Eds.), Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science. Elsevier Science Publishers.
7. Brockhoff, P. M., & Skovgaard, I. M. (1994). Modelling individual differences between assessors in sensory evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 5, (3), 215-224.
8. Chatfield, C. (1992). Problem Solving. A statistician’s guide. Chapman & Hall.
9. Couronne, T. (1997). A study of assessors’ performance using graphical methods. Food Quality and Preference, 8, (5), 359-365.
10. Danzart, M. (1983). Evaluation of the performance of panel judges. In Food research and data analysis: proceedings from the IUFoST Symposium, September 20-23, 1982, Oslo, Norway. Edited by H. Martens and H. Russwurm, Jr.
11. Dijksterhuis, G. (1995). Assessing panel consonance. Food Quality and Preference, 6, (1), 7-14.
12. Kermit, M., & Lengard, V. (2005). Assessing the performance of a sensory panel-panellist monitoring and tracking. Journal of Chemometrics, 19, (3), 154-161.
13. King, M. C., Hall, J., & Cliff, M. A. (2001). A comparison of methods for evaluating the performance of a trained sensory panel. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, (6), 567-581.
14. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2013). lmerTest: tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0-3.
15. Labbe, D., Rytz, A., & Hugi, A. (2004). Training is a critical step to obtain reliable product profiles in a real food industry context. Food Quality and Preference, 15, (4), 341-348.
16. Lawless, H. (1998). Commentary on random vs. fixed effects for panelists. Food Quality and Preference, 9, (3), 163-164.
17. Lea, P., Naes, T., & Rødbotten, M. (1997). Analysis of variance of sensory data. J. Wiley and Sons.
18. Lea, P., Rødbotten, N., & Naes, T. 1995. Measuring validity in sensory analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 6, (4), 321-326.
19. Ledauphin, S., Hanafi, M., & Qannari, E. M. (2006). Assessment of the agreement among the subjects in fixed vocabulary profiling. Food Quality and Preference, 17, (3), 277-280.
20. MacFie, H. J. H., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K., & Vallis, L.V. (1989). Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, (2), 129-148.
21. McEwan, J.A., Hunter, E.A., Gemert, L.J., & Lea, P. (2002). Proficiency testing for sensory profile panels: measuring panel performance. Food Quality and Preference, 13, (3), 181-190.
22. Naes, T. (1991) Handling individual differences between assessors in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference, 2, (3), 187-199.
23. Naes, T. (1998). Detecting individual differences among assessors and differences among replicates in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference, 9, (3), 107-110.
24. Naes, T., & Langsrud, Ø. (1998). Fixed or random assessors in sensory profiling? Food Quality and Preference, 9, (3), 145-152.
25. Naes, T., & Solheim, R. (1991). Detection and interpretation of variation within and between assessors in sensory profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies, 6, (3), 159-77.
26. Pagès, J., & Périnel, E. (2004). Panel performance and number of evaluations in a descriptive sensory study. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, (4), 273-291.
27. Peltier, C., Brockhoff, P.B., Visalli, M., & Schlich, P. (2014). The MAMCAP table: a new tool for monitoring panel performances. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 24-27.
28. Périnel, E., & Pagès, J. (2003). Optimal nested cross-over designs in sensory analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 15, (5), 439-446.
29. Pineau, N., Chabanet, C., & Schlich, P. (2007). Modeling the evolution of the performance of a sensory panel: a mixed-model and control chart approach. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, (2), 212-241.
30. Rossi, F. (2001). Assessing sensory panelist performance using repeatability and reproducibility measures. Food Quality and Preference, 12, (5), 467-479.
31. The PanelCheck project. http://www.panelcheck.com.
32. Wakeling, I., Hasted, A., & Buck, D. (2001). Cyclic presentation order designs for consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 12, (1), 39-46.
33. Wakeling, I., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1995). Designing consumer trials balanced for first and higher orders of carry-over effects. Food Quality and Preference, 6, (4), 299-308.
34. Borgognone, M.G., Bussi, J., & Hough, G. (2001). Principal component analysis in sensory analysis: covariance or correlation matrix? Food Quality and Preference, 12, 323-326.
35. Bro, R., Qannari, E. M., Kiers, H. A., Naes, T., & Frøst, M. B. (2008). Multi-way models for sensory profiling data. Journal of Chemometrics, 22, 36-45.
36. Cadoret, M., & Husson, F. (2013). Construction and evaluation of confidence ellipses applied at sensory data. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 106-115.
37. Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P. B., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2012). 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.
38. Dijksterhuis, G. B. (1997). Multivariate data analysis in sensory and consumer science. Trumbull: Food & Nutrition Press.
39. Dijksterhuis, G. B., & Heiser, W. J. (1995). The role of permutation tests in exploratory multivariate data analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 6, (4), 263-270.
40. Husson, F., Bocquet, V., & Pagès, J. (2004). Use of confidence ellipses in a PCA applied to sensory analysis: application to the comparison of monovarietal ciders. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 510-518.
41. Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2007).Variability of the representation of the variables resulting from PCA in the case of a conventional sensory profile. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 933-937.
42. Husson, F., Le Dien, S., & Pagès, J. (2005). Confidence ellipse for the sensory profiles obtained with principal component analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 245-250.
43. Kunert, J., & Qannari, E. M. (1999). A simple alternative to generalized procrustes analysis: application to sensory profiling data. Journal of Sensory Studies, 14, 197-208.
44. Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. New York: Chapman and Hall.
45. Luciano, G., & Naes, T. (2009). Interpreting sensory data by combining principal component analysis and analysis of variance. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 167-175.
46. Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory evaluation techniques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
47. Meyners, M. (2003). Methods to analyse sensory profiling data, a comparison. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 507-514.
48. Naes, T., & Risvik, E. (1996). Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
49. Qannari, E. M., Wakeling, I., Courcoux, P., & MacFie, H. J. H. (2000). Defining the underlying sensory dimensions. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 151-154.
50. SSHA. 1998. Evaluation sensorielle. Manuel méthodologique (SSHA, 3e édition). Edited by Tec & Doc. Paris: Lavoisier.
51. Stone, H., & Sidel, J.L. (1985). Sensory evaluation practices. Orlando: Academic Press.
52. Stone, H., & Sidel, J.L. (1998). Quantitative descriptive analysis: developments, applications, and the future. Food Technology Journal, 52, 48-52.
53. Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliviers, S., Woolsey, A., & Singleton, R. C. (1974, November). Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology, 24-28.
54. Zook, K. L., & Pearce, J. H. (1988). Quantitative descriptive analysis. In: H. Moskowitz (Ed.), Applied sensory analysis of food, vol. 1, 43-71. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
55. Arnold, G. M. (1986). A generalised Procrustes macro for sensory analysis. Genstat Newsletter, 18, 61-80.
56. Arnold, G. M., & Williams, A. A. (1985). Use of generalised Procrustes techniques in sensory analysis. In: J. R. Piggott (Ed.), Statistical procedures in food research, 233-253.
57. Blancher, G., Lê, S., Siefferman, J.-M., & Chollet, S. (2008). Comparison of visual appearance and texture profiles of jellies in France and Vietnam and validation of attribute transfer between the two countries. Food Quality and Preference, 19, (2), 185-196.
58. Carroll, J. D. (1968). Generalisation of canonical analysis to three or more sets of variables. Proceedings of the 76th Convention of the American Psychological Association, 3, 227-228.
59. Clapperton, J. F., & Piggott, J. R. (1979). Flavor characterization by trained and untrained assessors. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 85, (5), 275-277.
60. Delarue, J., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2004). Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the avour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preference, 15, (4), 383-392.
61. Deliza, R., MacFie, H., & Hedderley, D. (2005). The consumer sensory perception of passion-fruit juice using free-choice profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies, 20, (1), 17-27.
62. Dijksterhuis, G. B., & Gower, J. C. (1991). The interpretation of generalized procrustes analysis and allied methods. Food Quality and Preference, 3, (2), 67-87.
63. Dijksterhuis, G. B., & Punter, P. (1990). Interpreting generalized procrutes analysis “analysis of variance” tables. Food Quality and Preference, 2, (4), 255-265.
64. Escofier, B., & Pagès, J. (1994). Multiple factor analysis (AFMULT package). Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 18, (1), 121-140.
65. Escofier, B. & Pagès, J. (1998). Analyses factorielles simples et multiples; objectifs, méthodes et interpretation, 3e édition. Paris: Dunod (284 p).
66. Follet, C., Lê, S., McEwan, J. A., & Pagès, J. (2006). Comparaison d’evaluations sensorielles descriptives fournies par trois panels de deux pays différents. Agro-Industrie et Méthodes Statistiques - 9èmes Journées Europ éennes, Janvier 2006, Montpellier, France, pp. 51-59.
67. Forde, C. G. (2006). Cross-cultural sensory analysis in the Asia-Pacific region. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 646-649.
68. Gower, J. C. (1975). Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40, (1), 33-51.
69. Hanafi, M., & Kiers, H. (2006). Analysis of K sets of data, with differential emphasis on agreement between and within sets. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 51, (3), 1491-1508.
70. Hirst, D., Muir, D. D., & Naes, T. (1994). Definition of the sensory properties of hard cheese: a collaborative study between Scottish and Norwegian panels. International Dairy Journal, 4, (8), 743-761.
71. Hotelling, H. (1936). Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika, 28, (3-4), 321-377.
72. Husson, F., Le Dien, S., & Pagès, J. (2001). Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference, 12, (5), 291-296.
73. Husson, F., & Pagès, J. (2003). Comparison of sensory profiles done by trained and untrained juries: methodology and results. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18, (6), 453-464.
74. Lawless, H. T. (1984). Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and non-expert wine consumers. Journal of Food Sciences, 49, (1), 120-123.
75. Lê, S., Husson, F., & Pagès, J. (2006). Confidence ellipses applied to the comparison of sensory profiles. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, (3), 241-248.
76. Lê, S., Pagès, J., & Husson, F. (2008). Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: application to a cross-cultural study. Food Quality and Preference, 19, (2), 179-184.
77. Le Dien, S., & Pagès, J. (2003a). Analyse factorielle multiple hiérarchique. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 51, (2), 47-73.
78. Le Dien, S., & Pagès, J. (2003). Hierarchical multiple factor analysis: application to the comparison of sensory profiles. Food Quality and Preference, 14, (5), 397-403.
79. Le Mée, D. (2006). Using a descriptive sensory panel across different countries and cultures. Food Quality and Preference, 17, (7-8), 647-648.
80. Lokki, T., Pätynen, J., Kuusinen, A., & Tervo, S. (2012). Disentangling preference ratings of concert hall acoustics using subjective sensory profiles. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, (5), 3148-3161.
81. Lokki, T., Pätynen, J., Kuusinen, A., Vertanen, H., & Tervo, S. (2011). Concert hall acoustics assessment with individually elicited attributes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, (2), 835-849.
82. Lorho, G. (2010). Perceived quality evaluation: an application to sound reproduction over headphones. ISBN 978-952-60-3196-5.
83. Lorho, G., Vase Legarth, S., & Zacharov, N. (2010). Perceptual validation of binaural recordings for mobile multimedia loudspeaker evaluations. AES 38th International Conference, Piteå, Sweden, 2010, June 13-15.
84. MacFie, H. J. H., & Hedderley, D. (1993). Current practice in relating sensory perception to instrumental measurements. Food Quality and Preference, 4, (1), 41-49.
85. McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J. S., & Thomson, D. M. H. (1989). The application of two free-choice profile methods to investigate the sensory characteristics of chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, (4), 271-286.
86. Moskowitz, H.R. (1996). Experts versus consumers: a comparison. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, (1), 19-37.
87. Pagès, J. (1995). Eléments de comparaison entre l’analyse factorielle multiple et la méthode Statis. Comptes rendus des XXVII Journées ASUm Jouy en Josas.
88. Pagès, J. (2002). Comparaison entre valuations sensorielles descriptives fournies par des jurys entrainés et un jury initié: méthodologie et résultats. Sciences des Aliments, 22, 557-575.
89. Pagès, J. (2005). Analyse factorielle multiple et analyse procustéenne. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 53, (4), 61-86.
90. Pagès, J., Bertrand, C., Ali, R., Husson, F., & Lê, S. (2007). Sensory analysis comparison of eight biscuits by French and Pakistani panels. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, (6), 665-686.
91. Pagès, J., & Husson, F. (2001). Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles. Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference, 12, (5-7), 297-309.
92. Pagès, J., & Husson, F. (2005). Multiple factors analysis with confidence ellipses: a methodology to study the relationships between sensory and instrumental data. Journal of Chemometrics, 19, (3), 138-144.
93. Qannari, E. M., Courcoux, P., Lejeune, M., & Maystre, O. (1997). Comparaison de trois Stratégies de Détermination d’un Compromis en Evaluation Sensorielle. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 45, (1), 61-74.
94. Risvik, R., Colwill, J. S., McEwan, J. A., & Lyon, D. H. (1992). Multivariate analysis of conventional profiling data: a comparison of a British and a Norwegian trained panel. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, (2), 97-118.
95. Siefferemann, J. M. (2002). Flash profiling. A new method of sensory descriptive analysis. In AIFST 35th convention, July 21-24, Sidney, Australia.
96. Van der Burg, E., & Dijksterhuis, G. (1996). Generalized canonical analysis of individual sensory profiles and instrumental data. In T. Naes & E. Risvik (Eds.), Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science. Elsevier.
97. Williams, A. A., & Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, (5), 558-568.
98. Worch, T., Lê, S., & Punter, P. (2010). How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference, 21, (3), 309-318.
99. Bécue-Bertaut, M., Álvarez-Esteban, R., & Pagès, J. (2008). Rating of products through scores and free-text assertions: Comparing and combining both. Food Quality and Preference, 19, (1), 122-134.
100. Bécue-Bertaut, M., & Lê, S. (2011). Analysis of multilingual labeled sorting tasks: application to a cross-cultural study in wine industry. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, (5), 299-310.
101. Bécue-Bertaut, M., & Pagès, J. (2004). A principal axes method for comparing contingency tables: MFACT. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 45, (3), 481-503.
102. Bécue-Bertaut, M., & Pagès, J. (2008). Multiple factor analysis and clustering of a mixture of quantitative, categorical and frequency data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52, (6), 3255-3268.
103. th European Symposium on Statistical Methods for the Food Industry, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, January 2008.
104. th European Symposium on Statistical Methods for the Food Industry, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, January 2008.
105. Feinerer, I. (2012). tm: Text Mining Package. R package version 0.5-7.1.
106. Feinerer, I. (2014). Introduction to the tm Package. Text Mining in R. Retrieved from: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tm/vignettes/tm.pdf.
107. Gentry, J. (2014). Twitter client for R. Retrieved from: http://geoffjentry.hexdump.org/twitteR.pdf.
108. Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2010). Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R. Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer Science & Data Analysis.
109. Kostov, B., Bécue-Bertaut, M., & Husson, F. (2013). Multiple factor analysis for contingency tables in the FactoMineR package. The R Journal, 5.
110. Kostov, B., Bécue-Bertaut, M., & Husson, F. (2014). An original methodology for the analysis and interpretation of word-count based methods: Multiple factor analysis for contingency tables complemented by consensual words. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 35-40.
111. Lebart, L., Salem, A., & Berry, L. (1998). Exploring textual data. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
112. Meyners, M., Castura, J. C., & Carr, B. T. (2013). Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference, 30, (2), 309-319.
113. Sauvageot, F., Urdapilleta, I., & Peyron, D. (2006). Within and between variations of texts elicited from nine wine experts. Food Quality and Preference, 17, (6), 429-444.
114. Taddy, M. (2013). Measuring political sentiment on Twitter: factor optimal design for multinomial inverse regression. Technometrics, 55, (4), 415-425.
115. Ten Kleij, F., & Musters, P. A. D. (2003). Text analysis of open-ended survey responses: a complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 14, (1), 43-52.
116. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons.
117. Bi, J., Ennis, D. M., & O’Mahony, M. (1997). How to estimate and use the variance of d’ from difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, (2), 87-104.
118. Böckenholt, U. (2006). Visualizing individual differences in pairwise comparison data. Food Quality and Preference, 17, (3), 179-187.
119. Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3-4), 324-345.
120. Christensen, R. H. B. (2013). Statistical methodology for sensory discrimination tests and its implementation in sensR. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sensR/vignettes/methodology.pdf.
121. Christensen, R. H. B., & Brockhoff, P. B. (2010). sensR: an R-package for Thurstonian modeling of discrete sensory data. R package version 1.2-19. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=sensR.
122. Courcoux, P., & Semenou, M. (1997). Preference data analysis using a paired comparison model. Food Quality and Preference, 8, (5-6), 353-358.
123. Ennis, D. M. (1993). The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, (4), 353-370.
124. Ennis, D. M., & Ennis, J. M. (2012). Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Quality and Preference, 23, (1), 13-17.
125. Ennis, J. M., Ennis, D., M., Yip, D., & O’Mahony, M. (1998). Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51, (2), 205-215.
126. Ennis, J. M., & Jesionka, V. (2011). The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, (5), 371-382.
127. Ennis, J. M., Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2014). Sensory difference tests as measurement instruments: a review of recent advances. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29, (2), 89-102.
128. Firth, D. (2005). Bradley-Terry models in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 12, 1-12. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v12/i01.
129. Firth, D. (2010). Qvcalc: quasi-variances for factor effects in statistical models. R package version 0.8-7, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=qvcalc.
130. Gabrielsen, G. (2000). Paired comparisons and designed experiments. Food Quality and Preference, 11, (1), 51-61.
131. Goos, P., & Groβmann, H. (2011). Optimal design of factorial paired comparison experiments in the presence of within-pair order effects. Food Quality and Preference, 22, (2), 198-204.
132. Næ, T., Brockhoff, P. B., & Tomic, O. (2010). Statistics for sensory and consumer science. John Wiley & Sons.
133. Sailer, O. (2013). “The crossdes” package. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/crossdes/crossdes.pdf.
134. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, (4), 273-286.
135. Turner, H., & Firth, D. (2012). Bradley-Terry models in R: the BradleyTerry2 package. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BradleyTerry2/vignettes/BradleyTerry.pdf.
136. Worch, T., & Delcher, R. (2013). A practical guideline for discrimination testing combining both the proportion of discriminators and Thurstonian approaches. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, (5), 396-404.
137. Abdi, H., & Valentin, D. (2007). Multiple correspondence analysis. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics, pp. 651-657, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
138. Abdi, H., Valentin, D., Chollet, S., & Chrea, C. (2007). Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: DISTATIS, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference, 18, (4), 627-640.
139. Bécue-Bertaut, M., & Lê, S. (2011). Analysis of multilingual labeled sorting tasks: application to a cross-cultural study in wine industry. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, (5), 299-310.
140. Best, D. L., & Ornstein, P. A. (1986). Children’s generation and communication of mnemonic organizational strategies. Developmental Psychology, 22, 845-853.
141. Cadoret, M., & Husson, F. (2013). Construction and evaluation of confidence ellipses applied at sensory data. Food Quality and Preference, 28, (1), 106-115.
142. Cadoret, M., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2009). A Factorial Approach for Sorting Task data (FAST). Food Quality and Preference, 20, (6), 410-417.
143. Cadoret, M., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2011). Statistical analysis of hierarchical sorting data. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, (22), 96-105.
144. Carroll, J. D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling in R. Shepard, A. Romney, & S. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences. New York, Academic Press, 105-155.
145. Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., Abdi, H., & 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, (6), 507-520.
146. Daws, J. T. (1996). The analysis of free-sorting data: beyond pairwise co-occurrences. Journal of Classification, 13, (1), 57-80.
147. Escoer, B., & Pagès, J. (1994). Multiple factor analysis (AFMULT package). Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 18, (1), 121-140.
148. Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2010). Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R. Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer Science & Data Analysis.
149. Lawless, H. T., Sheng, N., & Knoops, S. S. C. P. (1995). Multidimensionalscaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference, 6, (2), 91-98.
150. Lelièvre, M., Chollet, S., Abdi, H., & 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, (8), 697-703.
151. Miller, G. A. (1969). A psychological method to investigate verbal concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 169-191.
152. Santosa, M., Abdi, H., & Guinard, J.-X. (2010). A modified sorting task to investigate consumer perceptions of extra virgin olive oils. Food Quality and Preference, 21, (7), 881-892.
153. th European Symposium on Statistical Methods for the Food Industry, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, January 2008.
154. th European Symposium on Statistical Methods for the Food Industry, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, January 2008.
155. Escofier, B., & Pagès, J. (1994). Multiple factor analysis (AFMULT package). Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 18, (1), 121-140.
156. Escofier, Y. (1970). Echantillonage dans une population de variables aléatoires réelles. Publ. Inst. Stat. Univ. Paris, 19, 1-47.
157. Escofier, Y. (1973). Le traitement des variables vectorielles. Biometrics, 29, 751-760.
158. Gazano, G., Ballay, S., Eladan, N., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2005). Flash profile and fragrance research: the world of perfume in the consumer’s words. ESOMAR Fragrance Research Conference, New-York, NY, 15-17 May 2005.
159. Gower, J.C. (1975). Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33-50.
160. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_test
161. Pagès, J. (2005). Collection and analysis of perceived product interdistances using multiple factor analysis: application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley Origina. Food Quality and Preference, 16, (7), 642-649.
162. Pagès, J., Cadoret, M., & Lê, S. (2010). The sorted napping: a new holistic approach in sensory evaluation. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, (5), 637-658.
163. Perrin, L., Symoneaux, R., Maître, I., Asselin, C., Jourjon, F., & 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), 1-11.
164. Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J. S., Rogers, R., & Lyon, D. H. (1994). Projective mapping: a tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 5, (4), 263-269.
165. Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., & Rødbotten, M. (1997). Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference, 8, (1), 63-71.
166. Couronne, T. (1996). Application de l’analyse factorielle multiple à la mise en relation de donnes sensorielles et de données de consommateurs. Sciences des Aliments, 16, 23-35.
167. de Mendiburu, F. (2013). agricolae: statistical procedures for agricultural research. R package version 1.1-4, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=agricolae.
168. Ennis, D.M. (2005). Analytic approaches to accounting for individual ideal point. IFPress, 82, 2-3.
169. Ennis, D. M., & Ennis, J. M. (2013). Mapping hedonic data: a process perspective. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, 324-334.
170. Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2011). Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R, Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer Science & Data Analysis.
171. Lê, S., Husson, F. & Pagès, J. (2006). Another look at sensory data: How to have your salmon and eat it, too!. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 658-668.
172. Lê, S., Pagès, J., & Husson, F. (2008). Methodology for the comparison of sensory Profiles provided by several panels: application to a cross-cultural study. Food Quality and Preference, 19, (2), 179-184.
173. Lim, J. (2011). Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 733-747.
174. Moskowitz, H., & Krieger, B. (1993). The contribution of sensory liking to overall liking: an analysis of six food categories. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 83-90.
175. Pagès, J., Bertrand, C., Ali, R., Husson, F., & Lê, S. (2007). Sensory analysis comparison of eight biscuits by French and Pakistani panels. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, (6), 665-686.
176. Rousseau, B., Ennis, D. M., & Rossi, F. (2012). Internal preference mapping and the issue of satiety. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 67-74.
177. Steel, R., Torry, G., & Dickey, D. (1997). Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. McGraw-Hill Inc., US. Third Edition.
178. Thomson, D. M. H., Crocker, C., & Marketo, C. G. (2010). Linking sensory characteristics to emotions: An example using dark chocolate. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1117-1125.
179. th Sensometric meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 1998.
180. Danzart, M. (2009a). Cartographie des préférences. In Evaluation sensorielle. Manuel méthodologique (SSHA, 3e édition) (pp. 443-450). Edited by Tec & Doc. Paris: Lavoisier.
181. Danzart, M. (2009b). Recherche d’un point optimal. In Evaluation sensorielle. Manuel méthodologique (SSHA, 3e édition) (pp. 431-439). Edited by Tec & Doc. Paris: Lavoisier.
182. Faber, N. M., Mojet, J., & Poelman, A. A. M. (2003). Simple improvement of consumer t in external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 14, (5), 455-461.
183. Gower, J., Groenen, P. J. F., Van de Welden, M., & Vines, K. (2014). Better perceptual maps: Introducing explanatory icons to facilitate interpretation. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 61-69.
184. Greenho, K., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1994). Preference mapping in practice. In Measurement of food preferences (MacFie, H. J. H., & Thompson, D. M. H. eds.). London: Blackie Academic & Professionals (pp. 137-166).
185. Lengard, V., & Kermit, M. (2006). 3-Way and 3-block PLS regressions in consumer preference analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 17, (3), 234-242.
186. Mage, I., Menichelli, E., & Naes, T. (2012). Preference mapping by POPLS: Separating common and unique information in several data blocks. Food Quality and Preference, 24, (1), 8-16.
187. Mao, M., & Danzart, M. (2008). Multi-response optimization strategies for targeting a prole of product attributes with an application on food data. Food Quality and Preference, 19, (2), 162-173.
188. McEwan, J. A. (1996). Preference Mapping for product optimization. In Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science (Naes, T., & Risvik, E. eds.). New York: Elsevier (pp. 71-102).
189. Menichelli, E., Hersleth, M., Almoy, T., & Naes, T. (2014). Alternative methods for combining information about products, consumers and consumers’ acceptance based on path modelling. Food Quality and Preference, 31, 143-155.
190. Meullenet, J.F., Lovely, C., Threlfall, R., Morris, J.R. & Striegler, R.K. (2008). An ideal point density plot method for determining an optimal sensory profile for Muscadine grape juice. Food Quality and Preference, 19, (2), 210-219.
191. Mevik, B. H., & Wehrens, R. (2007). The pls package: principal component and partial least squares regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 13.
192. Pagès, J., & Tenenhaus, M. (2001). Multiple factor analysis combined with PLS path modelling. Application to the analysis of relationships between physicochemical variables, sensory Profiles and hedonic judgments. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 58, (2), 261-273.
193. Pagés, J., & Tenenhaus, M. (2002). Analyse factorielle multiple et approche PLS. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 50, 5-33.
194. Tenenhaus, M., Pagés, J., Ambroisine, L., & Guinot, C. (2005). PLS methodology to study relationships between hedonic judgments and product characteristics. Food Quality and Preference, 16, (4), 315-325.
195. Van Kleef, E., Van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2006). Internal versus external preference mapping: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Quality and Preference, 17, (5), 387-399.
196. Worch, T. (2013). PrefMFA, a solution taking the best of both internal and external preference mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 30, (2), 181-191.
197. Yenket, R., Chambers IV, E., & Adhikari, K. (2011). A comparison of seven preference mapping techniques using four software programs. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, (2), 135-150.
198. Cooper, H.R., Earle, M.D., & Triggs, C.M. (1989). Ratios of Ideals? A New Twist to an Old Idea, in Product Testing with Consumers for Research Guidance, Philadelphia, ASTM STP 1035, 54-63.
199. Gacula, M., Rutenbeck, S., Pollack, L., Resurreccion, A. V. A., & Moskowitz, H. R. (2007). The Just About Right intensity scale: functional analyses and relation to hedonics. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, 194-211.
200. Hoggan, J. (1975). New Product Development, MBAA Technical Quarterly, 12, 81-86.
201. Li, B., Hayes, J. E., & Ziegler, G. R. (2014). Just-about-right and ideal scaling provide similar insights into the influence of sensory attributes on liking. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 71-78.
202. Meullenet, J.F., Xiong, R., & Findlay, C.J. (2007). Multivariate and probabilistic analyses of sensory science problems, Ames, Blackwell Publishing, 208-210.
203. Moskowitz, H.R. (1972). Subjective ideals and sensory optimization in evaluating perceptual dimensions in food. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, (1), 60-66.
204. Moskowitz, H.R., Stanley, D.W., & Chandler, J.W. (1977). The Eclipse method: Optimizing product formulation through a consumer generated ideal sensory profile. Canadian Institute of Food Science Technology Journal, 10, (3), 161-168.
205. Pagès, J., Berthelo, S., Brossier, M., & Gourret, D. (2014). Statistical penalty analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 32, Part A, 16-23.
206. Rothman, L., & Parker, M. (2009). Just-About-Right JAR scales: Design, usage, benefits and risks. ASTM International, Manual MNL-63-EB, USA.
207. Szczesniak, A., Loew, B.J., & Skinner, E.Z. (1975). Consumer texture profile technique. Journal of food science, 40, (6), 1253-1256.
208. Van Trijp, H.C., Punter, P.H., Mickartz, F., & Kruithof, L. (2007). The quest for the ideal product: comparing different methods and approaches. Food Quality and Preference, 18, (5), 729-740.
209. Worch, T., Crine, A., Gruel, A., & Lê, S. Analysis and validation of the Ideal Profile Method: Application to a skin cream study. Food Quality and Preference, 32, Part A, 132-144.
210. Worch, T., Dooley, L., Meullenet, J.F., & Punter, P. (2010). Comparison of PLS dummy variables and Fishbone method to determine optimal product characteristics from ideal Profiles. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1077-1087.
211. Worch, T., & Ennis, J.M. (2013) Investigating the single ideal assumption using Ideal Profile Method. Food Quality and Preference, 29, (1), 40-47.
212. Worch, T., Lê, S., & Punter, P. (2010). How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory Profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference, 21, (3), 309-318.
213. Worch, T., Lê, S., Punter, P., & Pagès, J. (2012). Assessment of the consistency of ideal Profiles according to non-ideal data for IPM. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 99-110.
214. Worch, T., Lê, S., Punter, P., & Pagès, J. (2012). Construction of an Ideal Map (IdMap) based on the ideal Profiles obtained directly from consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 93-104.
215. Worch, T., Lê, S., Punter, P., & Pagès, J. (2012). Extension of the consistency of the data obtained with the Ideal Profile Method: Would the ideal products be more liked than the tested products? Food Quality and Preference, 26, 74-80.
216. Worch, T., Lê, S., Punter, P., & Pagès, J. (2013). Ideal Profile Method: the ins and outs. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 45-59.
217. Cornillon, P. A., Guyader, A., Husson, F., Jegou, N., Josse, J., Kloareg, M., Matzner-Løber, E., Rouvière, L. (2012). R for Statistics., Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer Science & Data Analysis.
218. Husson, F., Lê, S., Pagès, J. (2011). Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R, Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer Science & Data Analysis.