Use of experienced panelists and the projective mapping task in comparison to trained panelists and naïve consumers

Abstract

Projective mapping (PM) is rapid sensory method that is becoming more popular among sensory scientists to obtain general product descriptions. This study compares the results of a descriptive analysis panel completed by trained panelists to the results of a PM task completed by experienced panelists (n = 22) and naïve consumers (n = 79), using cookies made with alternative grains as a model. The experienced panelists in this trial were considered as those who have experience with the PM task; however, they do not experience with the products being tested. There was no correlation between the naïve consumers and experienced panelists (RV = 0.297). The RV coefficient between the experienced panelists and the trained panelists was 0.665, indicating a high similarity. These results indicate that experience with the sensory task has drastic effects on the panelists' evaluations. Future work needs to explore when experienced panelists are the most suitable group of assessors to be used. Practical applicationsExperienced panelists are panelists who have extensive knowledge and experience with a particular sensory method. However, in this trial, they do not possess knowledge or training about the products being assessed. This study investigates how experienced panelists performing the PM task compare to naïve consumers and trained panelists. There was no correlation between the naïve consumers and the experienced panelists; however, there was a correlation between the trained and experienced panelists. Further examination is necessary; however, research may indicate that when time, resources, or product is limited, experienced panelists may be a good surrogate population for trained panelists.

Sensory characteristics of structured guava (Psidium guajava): comparison of optimized descriptive profile, cata and sensory acceptance methods

“…Since, being a new product, the characterization by projective methods is an additional approach to analyze the samples in greater depth, clearly demonstrating the feeling, thinking and perception of the consumers (Gambaro, 2018). These methods have been used in studies with several foods, such as meat (Andrade et al, 2016) crackers (Morin et al, 2018) and fermented milk (Pinto et al, 2018).…”

An Overview of Sensory Characterization Techniques: From Classical Descriptive Analysis to the Emergence of Novel Profiling Methods

“…This technique enables the description of products through their similarities and differences, as well as the clustering samples [27,43]. It can be performed with different kinds of panelists (experienced panelists, trained panelists, naïve consumers, or individuals who are employed in the wine industry), allowing for comparisons of results to study consumers' perception [42,[44][45][46]. However, when time, resources, or samples are limited, an experienced panelist may be the best option [45].…”

Investigating the effects of two volatile phenols on aroma perception of four red wine cultivars using Projective Mapping

“…In this study, the impact of the red wine matrix on the perception of these compounds was evaluated. The traditional method for such evaluations is Descriptive Analysis (DA), a widely used tool in the field of sensory analysis (Harwood, McLean, Ennis, Ennis, & Drake, 2020; Kemp, Hort, & Hollowood, 2018; Martínez‐Gil et al, 2012; Morin, Hayward, & McSweeney, 2018). However, despite the flexibility, versatility, and rigor of the method, it is time‐consuming, can become expensive and relies entirely on regular, diligent attendance by a large panel.…”

“…Pickup, Bremer, and Peng (2018) noted that the extensive time and cost associated with conventional sensory profiling methods has spurred sensory researchers to develop alternative rapid methods, such as Flash Profiling, and methods based on sorting like and unlike samples, for example, Projective Mapping (PM), or Napping®, and Polarized Projective Mapping (PPM). These latter methods have in common that they generate two‐dimensional sensory maps using untrained panelists (Kemp et al, 2018), consumers (Harwood et al, 2020; Smith & McSweeney, 2019) or both (Morin et al, 2018) to separate samples based on perceived sensory similarities.…”