Panelists' Performances and Strategies in Paper‐Based and Computer‐Based Projective Mapping

Abstract

Projective mapping has recently attracted a lot of attention and the main sensory data acquisition software packages have developed interfaces to collect projective mapping data. However, the comparison between paper‐ and computer‐based projective mapping has never been reported. The objectives of this research were to (1) compare the consensus maps and panelists' performances for paper‐ and computer‐based projective mapping and (2) analyze the panelists' strategies while performing either tasks. In the first part of the study, 32 panelists were asked to perform both paper‐ and computer‐based projective mapping on eight beer samples. In a second part of the study, 10 panelists were asked to repeat the tasks while “thinking aloud” their strategy. There was no significant difference in panelists' performance as assessed by the people performance index between the paper and computer tasks. The consensus maps obtained were similar with respect to sample groupings, RV coefficients and variation explained by the first two dimensions. Individual panelists adopted similar strategies on paper and computer, but strategies differed greatly between panelists. Practical Applications The results reported here will help panel leaders in making informed decisions with respect to support choice when designing projective mapping tests. Additionally, an insight into the diversity of panelists' mapping strategies is provided which may inform further research and discussion into the most appropriate instructions given to panelists and/or type of panel used.

Comparison of Pairwise Dissimilarity and Projective Mapping Tasks With Auditory Stimuli

“…It is of interest to further consider why more than two dimensions could be recovered from a 2-dimensional response format. Examination of each individual participant's results indicates that the participants attempted to communicate the three perceptual dimensions using a range of varied strategies, as has been found previously [27]. Most participants tended to use sub-categories to express the third dimension, such as the examples shown in Figure 9a and Figure 9b.…”

A preliminary investigation into differences in hops’ aroma attributes

“…In this test, participants are instructed to try the presented samples and position them on a large piece of paper (60 cm by 40 cm), according to the similarity of the products (Valentin et al ., ). It has been used to evaluate the flavour and aroma attributes of a number different food products including brandy (Louw et al ., ), wine (Torri et al ., ), yogurt (Cruz et al ., ), apples (Nestrud & Lawless, ) and beer (Savidan & Morris, ). Both projective mapping trials followed the same procedure, only the samples were different.…”

Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products

“…The replicate samples should be placed closely together on the 2D or perceptual map (Torri et al, 2013). Future studies should include a replicate sample in the PM task to evaluate panelist performance as has been suggested in past studies (Hopfer & Heymann, 2013; Louw et al, 2014; Savidan & Morris, 2015).…”