Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling. / Dehlholm, Christian; Brockhoff, Per B.; Meinert, Lene ; Aaslyng, Margit D.; Bredie, Wender Laurentius Petrus.

In: Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2012, p. 267-277.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Dehlholm, C, Brockhoff, PB, Meinert, L, Aaslyng, MD & Bredie, WLP 2012, 'Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling', Food Quality and Preference, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012

APA

Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P. B., Meinert, L., Aaslyng, M. D., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2012). Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012

Vancouver

Dehlholm C, Brockhoff PB, Meinert L, Aaslyng MD, Bredie WLP. Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference. 2012;26(2):267-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012

Author

Dehlholm, Christian ; Brockhoff, Per B. ; Meinert, Lene ; Aaslyng, Margit D. ; Bredie, Wender Laurentius Petrus. / Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling. In: Food Quality and Preference. 2012 ; Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 267-277.

Bibtex

@article{7d8bdb15cb8e4d558b4eb4cc37fcf319,
title = "Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling",
abstract = "Two new rapid descriptive sensory evaluation methods are introduced to the field of food sensory evaluation. The first method, free multiple sorting, allows subjects to perform ad libitum free sortings, until they feel that no more relevant dissimilarities among products remain. The second method is a modal restriction of Napping to specific sensory modalities, directing sensation and still allowing a holistic approach to products. The new methods are compared to Flash Profiling, Napping and conventional descriptive sensory profiling. Evaluations are performed by several panels of expert assessors originating from two distinct research environments. Evaluations are performed on the same nine p{\^a}t{\'e} products and within the same period of time. Results are analysed configurationally (graphically) as well as with RV coefficients, semantically and practically. Parametric bootstrapped confidence ellipses are applied for the graphical validation and comparisons. This allows similar comparisons and is applicable to single-block evaluation designs such as Napping. The partial Napping allows repetitions on multiple sensory modalities, e.g. appearance, taste and mouthfeel, and shows the average of these repetitions to be significantly more closely related to the conventional profile than other methods. Semantic comparison shows large differences, with closest relations found between the two conventional profiles. This suggests that semantic results from an assessor in an evaluation type with no training sessions are dependent on the assessors{\textquoteright} personal semantic skills. Comparisons of the methods{\textquoteright} practical differences highlight the time advantage of the rapid approaches and their individual differences in the number of attributes generated.",
author = "Christian Dehlholm and Brockhoff, {Per B.} and Lene Meinert and Aaslyng, {Margit D.} and Bredie, {Wender Laurentius Petrus}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "267--277",
journal = "Food Quality and Preference",
issn = "0950-3293",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling

AU - Dehlholm, Christian

AU - Brockhoff, Per B.

AU - Meinert, Lene

AU - Aaslyng, Margit D.

AU - Bredie, Wender Laurentius Petrus

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Two new rapid descriptive sensory evaluation methods are introduced to the field of food sensory evaluation. The first method, free multiple sorting, allows subjects to perform ad libitum free sortings, until they feel that no more relevant dissimilarities among products remain. The second method is a modal restriction of Napping to specific sensory modalities, directing sensation and still allowing a holistic approach to products. The new methods are compared to Flash Profiling, Napping and conventional descriptive sensory profiling. Evaluations are performed by several panels of expert assessors originating from two distinct research environments. Evaluations are performed on the same nine pâté products and within the same period of time. Results are analysed configurationally (graphically) as well as with RV coefficients, semantically and practically. Parametric bootstrapped confidence ellipses are applied for the graphical validation and comparisons. This allows similar comparisons and is applicable to single-block evaluation designs such as Napping. The partial Napping allows repetitions on multiple sensory modalities, e.g. appearance, taste and mouthfeel, and shows the average of these repetitions to be significantly more closely related to the conventional profile than other methods. Semantic comparison shows large differences, with closest relations found between the two conventional profiles. This suggests that semantic results from an assessor in an evaluation type with no training sessions are dependent on the assessors’ personal semantic skills. Comparisons of the methods’ practical differences highlight the time advantage of the rapid approaches and their individual differences in the number of attributes generated.

AB - Two new rapid descriptive sensory evaluation methods are introduced to the field of food sensory evaluation. The first method, free multiple sorting, allows subjects to perform ad libitum free sortings, until they feel that no more relevant dissimilarities among products remain. The second method is a modal restriction of Napping to specific sensory modalities, directing sensation and still allowing a holistic approach to products. The new methods are compared to Flash Profiling, Napping and conventional descriptive sensory profiling. Evaluations are performed by several panels of expert assessors originating from two distinct research environments. Evaluations are performed on the same nine pâté products and within the same period of time. Results are analysed configurationally (graphically) as well as with RV coefficients, semantically and practically. Parametric bootstrapped confidence ellipses are applied for the graphical validation and comparisons. This allows similar comparisons and is applicable to single-block evaluation designs such as Napping. The partial Napping allows repetitions on multiple sensory modalities, e.g. appearance, taste and mouthfeel, and shows the average of these repetitions to be significantly more closely related to the conventional profile than other methods. Semantic comparison shows large differences, with closest relations found between the two conventional profiles. This suggests that semantic results from an assessor in an evaluation type with no training sessions are dependent on the assessors’ personal semantic skills. Comparisons of the methods’ practical differences highlight the time advantage of the rapid approaches and their individual differences in the number of attributes generated.

U2 - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012

DO - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012

M3 - Journal article

VL - 26

SP - 267

EP - 277

JO - Food Quality and Preference

JF - Food Quality and Preference

SN - 0950-3293

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 38393046