This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling Edited by Paula Varela Gastón Ares Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling Edited by Paula Varela Gastón Ares Boca Raton London New York CRC Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 © 2014 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S Government works Version Date: 20140320 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4665-6630-9 (eBook - PDF) This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint Except as permitted under U.S Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400 CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com Contents Preface vii Acknowledgments ix Editors xi Contributors xiii Chapter Introduction Paula Varela and Gastón Ares Chapter Classical Descriptive Analysis Hildegarde Heymann, Ellena S King, and Helene Hopfer Chapter Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Techniques for Sensory Characterization 41 Sébastien Lê Chapter Ideal Profiling 85 Thierry Worch and Pieter H Punter Chapter Use of Just-About-Right Scales in Consumer Research .137 Richard Popper Chapter Free-Choice Profile Combined with Repertory Grid Method .157 Amparo Tárrega and Paula Tarancón Chapter Flash Profile .175 Julien Delarue Chapter Free Sorting Task 207 Sylvie Chollet, Dominique Valentin, and Hervé Abdi v vi Contents Chapter Projective Mapping and Napping 229 Christian Dehlholm Chapter 10 Polarized Sensory Positioning Methodologies 255 Eric Teillet Chapter 11 Check-All-That-Apply Questions .271 Michael Meyners and John C Castura Chapter 12 Open-Ended Questions 307 Ronan Symoneaux and Mara V Galmarini Chapter 13 Dynamic Sensory Descriptive Methodologies: Time–Intensity and Temporal Dominance of Sensations 333 Rafael Silva Cadena, Leticia Vidal, Gastón Ares, and Paula Varela Chapter 14 Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization 365 Gastón Ares and Paula Varela Preface Sensory characterization is one of the most powerful, sophisticated, and extensively applied tools in sensory science, in both academia and industry It aims at providing a complete description of the sensory characteristics of products Sensory characterization is extensively applied in the industry for the development and marketing of new products, the reformulation of existing products, the optimization of manufacturing processes, the monitoring of sensory characteristics of the products available in the market, the implementation of sensory quality assurance programs, the establishment of relationships between sensory and instrumental methods, and for estimating sensory shelf life Descriptive analysis techniques, such as QDA® and Spectrum®, applied with trained assessor panels have been the most common methodologies for this purpose for the last 50 years However, due to the cost and time needed for their application, several alternative methods have been recently developed These methods not require training; can be performed by trained or semitrained assessors, or even naive consumers; and have been reported to be a reliable option when quick information about the sensory characteristics of a set of products is needed The application of these novel methodologies for sensory characterization with consumers allows to better understand their perception of products, providing a description based on consumers’ perception and vocabulary Novel methodologies for sensory characterization have been rapidly gaining popularity and have become one of the most active and dynamic areas of research in sensory and consumer science in the last five years This type of methodology opens new opportunities for those companies that cannot afford training and maintaining a trained sensory panel, or when quick information about the sensory characteristics of products is needed However, one of the main challenges that many researchers face in the application of novel methodologies is that information on how to implement them appears in a large number of articles published in different scientific journals In this context, the aim of this book is to provide a comprehensive overview of classical and novel alternative methodologies characterization of food and nonfood products The most common novel methodologies for sensory characterization are described and accompanied by detailed information for their implementation, discussion of examples of applications, and case studies Data analysis of the majority of the methodologies vii viii Preface is implemented in the statistical free software R, which makes the book useful for people unfamiliar with complex statistical software We hope that this book provides the reader a complete, actual, and critical view of new trends in sensory characterization and that it encourages the application of novel methodologies for sensory characterization Additional material is available from the CRC Web site: http://www crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466566293 Paula Varela Gastón Ares 378 Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling free-choice profiling, flash profile, and PSP According to Ares et al (2010b), consumers took between and 15 to answer a CATA question for sensory characterization of eight milk desserts, whereas they needed between 18 and 25 to complete a projective mapping task with the same samples Moreover, Veinand et al (2011) reported that assessors needed 70 to perform free-choice profiling, 50 to complete a flash profile, and 40 for projective mapping These authors also stated that assessors were less saturated and tired after completing a projective mapping task than after performing a flash profile Therefore, holistic methodologies seem to be slightly more difficult and time-consuming for consumers than attribute-based methodologies Taking into account that trained assessors could more easily understand these methodologies, Veinand et al (2011) recommended performing projective mapping with expert panelists However, it is important to highlight that these methodologies have been used by naïve assessors, providing valid and reliable results (Albert et al 2011; Ares et al 2011; Moussaoui and Varela 2010; Veinand et al 2011) Another issue to consider when using projective mapping with paper ballots is that measuring the products’ coordinates in the sheet of each assessor is tedious, tiresome, and time-consuming for the panel leader, particularly when working with a large number of consumers (Veinand et al 2011) Besides, the software available for sensory evaluation does not enable the implementation of flash profile yet 14.2 COMPARISON OF NOVEL METHODOLOGIES AND DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS Many studies have shown that the product spaces gathered with descriptive analysis and novel methodologies are similar However, it should be highlighted that the information provided by both types of methodologies is different Classical descriptive analysis provides a quantitative measure of the intensity of a set of specific sensory attributes by a trained assessor panel In this methodology, the sensory attributes are precisely defined, assessors are trained in attribute recognition and scaling, they use a common and agreed sensory language, and products are scored on repeated trials (ASTM 1992) For these reasons, descriptive analysis provides detailed and accurate information about the sensory characteristics of the products Data from descriptive analysis are analyzed by univariate parametric statistics such as analysis of variance, which makes it possible to identify small and subtle differences among samples in each of the evaluated attributes (Lawless and Heymann 2010) On the other hand, novel methodologies commonly use Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization 379 untrained assessors and not rely on the evaluation of sensory attributes that have been previously defined and agreed among panelists Due to the previously mentioned differences, descriptive analysis usually provides accurate and detailed information than novel methodologies, having a higher discriminating ability to detect significant differences among samples in many situations (Cartier et al 2006; Dehlholm et al 2012b) Moreover, the interpretation of the sensory characteristics elicited by novel methodologies is usually difficult due to the large number of elicited terms, the lack of definitions, and standard evaluation protocols Therefore, results from descriptive analysis are usually more actionable for product developers than those from novel methodologies In general, descriptive analysis is usually more appropriate when evaluating similar samples, comparing different sample sets, or evaluating samples at different moments in time Although novel methodologies for sensory characterization are usually considered complementary to descriptive analysis with trained assessor panels, they can be regarded as interesting alternatives in many specific situations Descriptive analysis is expensive and time-consuming The length of the training process usually ranges from 10 to 120 h, depending on the complexity of the specific product and the number and characteristics of the sensory attributes needed to characterize the product (Dairou and Sieffermann 2002; Meilgaard et al 1999) This makes it difficult to apply this methodology in many everyday situations in the food industry where there are constraints in terms of time and resources (Delarue and Siefferman 2004; Labbe et al 2004) When using descriptive analysis, the vocabulary and associated panel training must be adapted to each specific type of product, which requires substantial time necessary to get reliable results In the context of today’s highly competitive markets, the time available for new product development have become shorter Therefore, in many occasions, it is not possible to use descriptive analysis during new product development of a novel product Moreover, novel methodologies can be a valuable alternative to gather information about the sensory characteristics of products for companies that not have resources to select, train, and maintain sensory panels for evaluating a specific product, which is common in small companies or developing countries In these cases, the cost and time involved in the selection and training of the assessors might be higher than those needed to perform a consumer study with 30–150 participants In these situations, novel methodologies can be quick, reliable, and costeffective alternatives for gathering information about the sensory characteristics of a set of products Novel methodologies can be particularly useful when the objective is to gather information about the most salient 380 Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling sensory attributes and the most relevant characteristics responsible for similarities and differences among products Besides, interest in gathering sensory information directly from the target consumers of products instead of the more technical descriptions provided by trained assessors has remarkably increased (Varela and Ares 2012) In most common approaches for product optimization, consumers are asked to rate their liking of a large set of products and the products’ sensory properties are characterized by trained assessors (van Kleef et al 2006) However, trained assessors may describe the product differently than consumers and/or evaluate attributes that may be irrelevant for them (ten Kleij and Musters 2003) Therefore, sensory characterization of products based on consumers can have greater external validity, which has contributed to increasing the popularity of novel methodologies for sensory characterization Furthermore, some methodological advantages of novel methodologies can also be highlighted The use of common sensory attributes can be regarded as a disadvantage of descriptive analysis (Delarue and Sieffermann 2004), which is overcome by novel methodologies Considering that a single stimulus can be perceived differently by subjects (Lawless 1999), forcing assessors to use common descriptors may lead to simplified sensory descriptions (Delarue and Sieffermann 2004) Therefore, methodologies that enable assessors to use their own sensory attributes according to their sensitivity and perception may enrich the sensory description, particularly when working with complex products (Albert et al 2011) In some cases, novel methodologies have been reported to provide better information than descriptive analysis For example, Delarue and Sieffermann (2004) reported that flash profile showed a higher discriminating capacity among apricot fresh cheeses than descriptive analysis This difference was attributed to the forced use of consensual attributes that might refer to different sensory concepts for assessors Similarly, Albert et al (2011) reported that flash profile with semitrained assessors provided a more detailed description of the sensory characteristics of fish nuggets than descriptive analysis Teillet et al (2010) reported that sorting and PSP were more discriminating than descriptive analysis for sensory characterization of mineral waters Besides, Symoneaux et al (2012) reported that results from an open-ended question with consumers showed better discriminating power than descriptive analysis on the juiciness of apple samples Regarding TDS, it provides information about the evolution of sensory sensations of products that cannot be obtained when using conventional descriptive analysis Descriptive analysis involves the evaluation of a set of attributes immediately after perception or after a predetermined period (ASTM 1992) However, sensory perception is not a single event but a dynamic process in which a series of simultaneous events occur Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization 381 (Piggott 1994, 2000) TDS studies the sequence of dominant sensations of a product during a certain time period (Pineau et al 2009) Some studies have reported that TDS provides information that is not emphasized by QDA (Bruzzone et al 2013; Labbe et al 2009; Meillon et al 2009), due to the fact that the attribute that catches assessors’ attention at a given time is not necessarily the most intense Therefore, QDA and TDS provide information about different aspects of sensory perception, particularly when working with complex and dynamic sensory characteristics 14.3 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING NOVEL METHODOLOGIES FOR SENSORY CHARACTERIZATION As discussed in the previous sections, no clear differences exist in the validity and reliability of novel methodologies for sensory characterization Generally speaking, they all provide similar information regarding the sensory characteristics of the products and the differences that exist among the samples Therefore, the selection of novel methodologies basically depends on the objective of the study and practical considerations 14.3.1 Objective of the Study The main criterion for selecting a methodology for a particular application is the specific aim of the study If detailed information about the sensory characteristics of the products is necessary, attribute-based methodologies are recommended In these methodologies, assessors focus their attention on specific sensory characteristics, and therefore, they provide rich and detailed descriptions A relevant difference exists among attribute-based methodologies Flash profile and free-choice profiling not require prior selection of sensory attributes since assessors generate their own vocabulary, being the most appropriate methodologies for generating consumer vocabulary to describe samples On the other hand, the ideal profile method or CATA questions rely on the evaluation of sensory attributes that are previously selected by the researcher based on preliminary information CATA and open-ended questions are simple methodologies that are strongly recommended when information about the sensory characteristics of products is obtained concurrently with hedonic scores The analytical evaluation performed in attribute-based methodologies can be regarded as artificial since consumers not evaluate a set of specific attributes when consuming a product Therefore, methodologies based on verbal descriptions or holistic perception would better reflect consumers’ synthetic evaluation of products These methodologies provide a measure of the global similarities and differences among samples 382 Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling Besides, holistic methodologies are also recommended when evaluating complex multimodal sensory properties According to Saint-Eve et al (2004), complex texture–flavor interactions should be better evaluated as a unique sensory experience instead of a series of independent sensory characteristics It should be taken into account that the use of language can influence the perceptual representation of products (Blancher et al 2007) Therefore, holistic methodologies could be an interesting alternative when conducting cross-cultural studies since this type of methodology does not require translating sensory terms PSP is the recommended approach when results from sensory characterization are going to be compared over time or over different sessions TDS is clearly recommended when the objective of the study is to obtain a dynamic sensory characterization, that is, to characterize samples based on the evolution of their sensory characteristics throughout consumption 14.3.2 Type of Assessors The selection of a novel methodology also depends on the type of assessors to be considered in the study When working with consumers, it would be generally easier to work with simple methodologies such as CATA questions, open-ended questions, or ideal profile On the other hand, when a trained assessor panel is available and quick information about the sensory characteristics of food products is needed, the recommended approach would be to apply flash profile, sorting, projective mapping, or PSP due to their higher complexity 14.3.3 Practical Considerations Another relevant issue that has to be taken into account when selecting novel methodologies is the time and resources available for their implementation As previously discussed, the methodologies strongly differ in the time required by assessors to complete the task, as well as the tediousness of data analysis In this sense, it is important to take into account that free-choice profiling requires two separate sessions for its implementation, whereas the time needed for analyzing data from open-ended questions can be quite long Also, when projecting mapping is performed on paper ballots, the data measuring and data input steps are long and tedious for the panel leader A summary of the main characteristics of the methodologies, which can be useful for selecting the most appropriate for a particular application, is included in Table 14.1 Attribute-based Attribute-based Attribute-based Attribute-based Verbal description Holistic Holistic Comparison with references Temporal evaluation of attributes Methodology Free-choice profiling Flash profile Ideal profile CATA questions Open-ended questions Sorting Projective mapping PSP TDS Type of Methodology Classification of differences based on their similarities and differences Locating samples on a 2D map according to their similarities and differences Evaluation of global differences between samples and fixed references Selection of the dominant attribute at each moment 1 1 1 Verbal description of samples Selection of sensory terms from a list Rating of specific sensory attributes Ranking of specific sensory attributes Rating of specific sensory attributes Task Minimum Number of Sessions 1–8 6–15 6–15 6–15 1–8 1–8 6–15 6–15 1–10 Usual Number of Samples Vocabulary Provided by the researcher Elicited by assessors Elicited by assessors Elicited by assessors Elicited by assessors Elicited by assessors Provided by the researcher Provided by the researcher Elicited by assessors TABLE 14.1 Summary of the Main Characteristics of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium Low Difficulty Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization 383 384 Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling 14.4 CONCLUSIONS Novel methodologies are simple and quick alternatives for sensory characterization of food products with trained and untrained assessors They have been reported to provide valid and reliable information, similar to that gathered with classical descriptive analysis performed with trained assessor panels However, novel methodologies cannot be regarded as a replacement for classical descriptive analysis since this methodology is always more accurate due to the fact that assessors are extensively trained in the identification and quantification of clearly defined sensory attributes Recently developed methodologies enable to perform sensory characterizations with consumers, which could be useful for uncovering consumer perception of food, in their own vocabulary This information could provide valuable information during new food product development or when designing marketing or communication campaigns, which could have greater external validity than classical external preference mapping approaches Finally, it is important to take into account that, unlike classical descriptive analysis, most novel methodologies for sensory characterization have been used for a relatively short period of time and have been used in a limited number of applications For this reason, further research on the applicability, reliability, and reproducibility of new approaches for sensory characterization is still strongly needed, particularly when dealing with complex products ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for financial support (AGL2009-12785-C02-01) and for the contract awarded to author P Varela (Juan de la Cierva program) They would also like to thank the Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC, Universidad de la República) for financial support REFERENCES Abdi, H., Dunlop, J P., and Williams, L J 2009 How to compute reliability estimates and display confidence and tolerance intervals for pattern classifiers using the Bootstrap and 3-way multidimensional scaling (DISTATIS) NeuroImage 45: 89–95 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 Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization 385 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 texture Application of QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training Food Quality and Preference 22: 463–473 Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Giménez, A., and Gámbaro, A 2010a Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts Journal of Sensory Studies 25: 67–86 Ares, G., Deliza, R., Barreiro, C., Giménez, A., and Gámbaro, A 2010b Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception Food Quality and Preference 21: 417–426 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 preference mapping techniques Food Quality and Preference 21: 286–294 Ares, G., Tárrega, A., Izquierdo, L., and Jaeger, S R 2014 Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions Food Quality and Preference 31: 135–141 Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., and Gimenez, A 2011 Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orangeflavoured powdered drinks International Journal of Food Science and Technology 46: 1600–1608 ASTM 1992 Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) Philadelphia, PA: ASTM Digital Library DOI: 608 10.1520/MNL10523M Barcenas, P., Elortondo, F J P., and Albisu, M 2004 Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes’ milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance Food Research International 37: 723–729 Blancher, G., Chollet, S., Kesteloot, R., Nguyen, D., Cuvelier, G., and Sieffermann, J.-M 2007 French and Vietnamese: How they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies Food Quality and Preference 18: 560–575 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 Brockhoff, P B 2003 Statistical testing of individual differences in sensory profiling Food Quality and Preference 14: 425–434 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 Bruzzone, F., Ares, G., and Giménez, A 2013 Temporal aspects of yoghurt texture perception International Dairy Journal 29: 124–134 Cadoret, M., Lê, S., and Pagès, J 2009 A factorial approach for sorting task data (FAST) Food Quality and Preference 20: 410–417 Campo, E., Ballester, J., Langlois, J., Dacremont, C., and Valentin, D 2010 Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequencybased descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines Food Quality and Preference 21: 44–55 386 Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling 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 Carmines, E G and Zeller, R A 1979 Reliability and Validity Assessment Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 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 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 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 Chollet, S., Valentin, D., and Abdi, H 2005 Do trained assessors generalize their knowledge to new stimuli? Food Quality and Preference 16: 13–23 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 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 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 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 Dooley, L., Lee, Y.-S., and Meullenet, J.-F 2010 The application of check-allthat-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 Falahee, M and MacRae, A W 1997 Perceptual variation among drinking waters: The reliability of sorting and ranking data for multidimensional scaling Food Quality and Preference 8: 389–394 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 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 Hopfer, H and Heymann, H 2012 A summary of projective mapping observations—The effect of replicates and shape, and individual performance measurements Food Quality and Preference 28: 164–181 Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization 387 Jack, F R and Piggott, J R 1991 Free choice profiling in consumer research Food Quality and Preference 3: 129–134 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 consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations Food Quality and Preference 30: 56–67 Kennedy, J 2010 Evaluation of replicated projective mapping of granola bars Journal of Sensory Studies 25: 672–684 Kermit, M and Lengard, V 2005 Assessing the performance of a sensory panel– panellist monitoring and tracking Journal of Chemometrics 19: 154–161 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 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 Lawless, H T 1999 Descriptive analysis of complex odors: Reality, model or illusion? Food Quality and Preference 10: 325–332 Lawless, H T and Glatter, S 1990 Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting Journal of Sensory Studies 5: 217–230 Lawless, H T and Heymann, H 2010 Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, 2nd edn New York: Springer 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 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 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 Lim, J and Lawless, H T 2005 Qualitative differences of divalent salts: Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis Chemical Senses 30: 719–726 Meilgaard, M C., Civille, G V., and Carr, B T 1999 Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 2nd edn Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Meillon, S., Urbano, C., and Schlich, P 2009 Contribution of the temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) method to the sensory description of subtle differences in partially dealcoholized red wines Food Quality and Preference 20: 490–499 Moussaoui, K A and Varela, P 2010 Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis Food Quality and Preference 21: 1088–1099 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 Nestrud, M A and Lawless, H T 2010 Perceptual mapping of apples and cheeses using projective mapping and sorting Journal of Sensory Studies 25: 390–405 388 Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling 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 Parente, M E., Manzoni, A V., and Ares, G 2011 External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers’ responses to a checkall-that-apply question Journal of Sensory Studies 26: 158–166 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 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 Piggott, J 1994 Understanding flavour quality: Difficult or impossible? Food Quality and Preference 5: 157–171 Piggott, J 2000 Dynamics in flavour science and sensory methodology Food Research International 33: 191–197 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 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 Prescott, J., Lee, S M., and Kim, K 2011 Analytic approaches to evaluation modify hedonic responses Food Quality and Preference 22: 391–393 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 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 Risvik, E., McEwan, J A., and Rodbotten, M 1997 Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data Food Quality and Preference 8: 63–71 Saint-Eve, A., Paài Kora, E., and Martin, N 2004 Impact of the olfactory quality 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 Small, D M and Prescott, J 2005 Odor/taste integration and the perception of flavour Experimental Brain Research 166: 345–357 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 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 Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization 389 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 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 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 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 Tomic, O., Nilsen, A., Martens, M., and Næs, T 2007 Visualization of sensory profiling data for performance monitoring LWT—Food Science and Technology 40: 262–269 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 van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H C M., and Luning, P 2006 Internal versus external preference analysis: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation Food Quality and Preference 17: 387–399 Varela, P and Ares, G 2012 Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science A review of novel methods for product characterization Food Research International 48: 893–908 Veinand, B., Godefroy, C., Adam, C., and Delarue, J 2011 Highlight of important product characteristics for consumers Comparison of three sensory descriptive methods performed by consumers Food Quality and Preference 22: 474–485 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 Food & Culinary Science Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling Sensory characterization is one of the most powerful, sophisticated, and extensively applied tools in sensory science Descriptive analysis with trained assessors has been traditionally used for sensory characterization Due to the cost of time and money required for its application, several novel methodologies, which not require training, have been recently developed and are gaining popularity as quick and reliable options for gathering sensory information These methodologies enable the study of consumers' perceptions of the sensory characteristics of products However, information on these techniques is scattered in scientific journal articles, which hinders their application and creates a need for a book to assemble the details of the latest advances Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling provides a comprehensive overview of classical and novel methods for sensory characterization of food and nonfood products The book presents the history behind descriptive analysis, describes the most common novel methodologies and detailed information for their implementation, and discusses examples of applications and case studies It also includes an introduction to exploratory multivariate analysis, addressing the theory and application of some of the most useful multivariate statistical tools applied in the analysis of consumer profiling data sets Most of the data analysis is implemented in the statistical free software R, making the book accessible to readers unfamiliar with complex statistical software Chapters examine a range of techniques including the ideal profile method, just-about-right scales in consumer research, free choice profiling, flash profiling, and repertory grid methods They cover emerging profiling methods, such as sorting, and projective mapping or Napping® Other techniques less frequently used for sensory profiling are also considered: the application of open-ended questions for sensory characterization, polarized sensory positioning, and the consumer-friendly check-all-that-apply questions In addition, dynamic sensory characterization methods, useful for studying temporal aspects of in-mouth sensory perception, are described The final chapter provides a critical comparison of the methodologies discussed, their advantages and disadvantages, and general recommendations for their application Data sets for the case studies discussed in the book can be downloaded from the publisher’s website at http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466566293 and analyzed using R software K16276 ... Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling Edited by Paula Varela Gastón... clearly shows the rise in the number of publications featuring sensory characterization since the 1960s Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling 300 Number of articles... the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for financial support (AGL2009-12785-C02-01) and for the contract Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling awarded to