Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data

Risvik, Einar; McEwan, Jean A.; Rødbotten, Marit

doi:10.1016/s0950-3293(96)00016-x

Cited by 113 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, the panellists RPI values comparing sessions were consistently higher than their RV coefficients comparing sessions. Previous studies on projective mapping have also reported that, based on RV coefficients, that panellist repeatability can be poor despite stable overall configurations (Kennedy, 2010;Risvik, McEwan, & Rødbotten, 1997). In our study, the average RV coefficient between sessions was 0.402, also indicating quite poor repeatability.…”

Section: The Relative Performance Index (Rpi) As a Measure Of Panellicontrasting

confidence: 45%

Trained sensory panellists’ response to product alcohol content in the projective mapping task: Observations on alcohol content, product complexity and prior knowledge

Louw

Oelofse

Næs

et al. 2014

Food Quality and Preference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. a b s t r a c tProjective mapping has been validated as a practical tool for the rapid sensory profiling of brandy products, although repeatability concerns necessitate repeated measurements in larger sample sets. The reason for poor repeatability could be linked to the complexity of the product type, as well as the physical and possibly psychological factors associated with its high alcohol content. To date no information has been published that tested the effect of these specific factors on panellist performance in projective mapping tasks. This study tested the effect of sample complexity and alcohol content on sensory panel repeatability and accuracy in projective mapping, using six types of commercial alcoholic beverages. In a second objective, the study also tested the effect of prior knowledge of alcohol content of a given product set on panellist performance in projective mapping. The results showed that complexity had the biggest impact on panel performance, while alcohol content had a secondary but decisive influence, largely due to its chemosensory fatiguing nature. Knowledge of the product alcohol content appeared to affect individuals differently, and also had an effect on the terminology used by the panellists to describe the products. The study also introduces the Relative Performance Indicator (RPI) as a new panel performance monitoring tool for projective mapping.

show abstract

Section: The Relative Performance Index (Rpi) As a Measure Of Panellicontrasting

confidence: 45%

Trained sensory panellists’ response to product alcohol content in the projective mapping task: Observations on alcohol content, product complexity and prior knowledge

Louw

Oelofse

Næs

et al. 2014

Food Quality and Preference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsampling has been hypothesized to exist in the context of multidimensional psychological methods (Bertino & Lawless, 1993;Lawless & Nestrud, 2008;Risvik, McEwan, & Rødbotten, 1997). In an investigation of mouthfeel attributes of oral care products, higher than predicted disagreement in multivariate solutions for pairwise similarity data was partially attributed to a shifting in attention by individual participants, as well as by different participants attending to different criteria (Bertino & Lawless, 1993).…”

Section: Previous Investigations Of Subsamplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Techniques that have been evaluated include generalized procrustes analysis (GPA) with product coordinates grouped within assessors, (King, Cliff, & Hall, 1998;Nestrud & Lawless, 2008b;Risvik et al, 1994), principle components analysis with product coordinates as separate attributes (Nestrud & Lawless, 2008b;Risvik et al, 1997), and MDS-INDSCAL on the distances between products (Barcenas, Elortondo, & Albisu, 2004). Recently, MFA was introduced, which is a kind of scaled PCA analysis (Pagès, 2004).…”

Section: Necker Cubementioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of subsampled dimensions and configurations derived from napping data by MFA and MDS

Nestrud

Lawless

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Napping is a multivariate sensory method in which participants physically place stimuli on a large sheet of paper and orient them so that the distance between pairs represents a measure of dissimilarity. The two-dimensional nature of the task may be a limitation to the ability of this and similar methodologies to recover information about complex stimuli. In the first investigation, eight simulated three-dimensional stimuli were created with two different levels for each attribute. Simulated napping experiments had groups of participants attend to two of the dimensions with different probabilities. Multiple factor analysis (an analytical multivariate statistical procedure that can be thought of as a principle components analysis on the individuals) and MDS-INDSCAL (a variation on multidimensional scaling that finds a common configuration through reducing a stress measure associated with lack of fit) recovered full dimensionality from these data, although MFA had trouble when attention was the most unbalanced. In the second experiment, a human napping experiment was designed using custom three-dimensional stimuli: shapes with two levels each of size, color, and shape attributes. This experiment confirmed the results of Experiment 1, as both MDS-INDSCAL and MFA analyses again recovered the full dimensionality of the stimuli.

show abstract

“…This method employs naive (untrained) consumers and allows them to arrange products on a two-dimensional plane (Risvik, McEwan, & Rødbotten, 1997). The positions and distances of the products on the maps reflect their similarities and differences, therefore giving vague and unstructured ideas about them (Risvik, McEwan, Colwill, Rogers, & Lyon, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of physicochemical characteristics, sensory properties and volatile composition between commercial and New Zealand made wakame from Undaria pinnatifida

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data

Cited by 113 publications

References 5 publications

Trained sensory panellists’ response to product alcohol content in the projective mapping task: Observations on alcohol content, product complexity and prior knowledge

Trained sensory panellists’ response to product alcohol content in the projective mapping task: Observations on alcohol content, product complexity and prior knowledge

Recovery of subsampled dimensions and configurations derived from napping data by MFA and MDS

Comparison of physicochemical characteristics, sensory properties and volatile composition between commercial and New Zealand made wakame from Undaria pinnatifida

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About