MULTIDIMENSIONAL SORTING, SIMILARITY SCALING AND FREE‐CHOICE PROFILING OF GRAPE JELLIES

The sensory data from three different methods, multidimensional sorting, similarity scaling, and free-choice profiling were compared using ten commercial grape jellies as a model system. Without any prior training, the overall similarities/dissimilarities between stimuli were judged using both multidimensional sorting and pair-wise scaling and the sensory attributes were rated using free-choice profiling by different panels. A two-dimensional stimulus configuration best represented the data from each of the three methods. The underlying dimensions of stimulus space were identified from free-choice profiling data and also explained some background variables. The texture, sweetness, sourness, grape flavor and color contributed to both dimensions. All three methods were very similar in describing the most important differences among stimuli as suggested by the highly significant correlation between their first dimensions. The Procrustes analysis coupled with permutation tests, as well as RV coefficient, indicated that similarity scaling and free-choice profiling reached maximum consensus, whereas multidimensional sorting shared slightly lesser consensus with the other two methods.

[1]  R. Marshall,et al.  SENSORY MEASUREMENT OF FOOD TEXTURE BY FREE‐CHOICE PROFILING , 1988 .

[2]  H. Heymann,et al.  PROFILING TO DESCRIBE THE SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS OF A SIMPLE MODEL MENTHOL SOLUTION , 1996 .

[3]  D. Thomson,et al.  A reappraisal of the use of multidimensional scaling to investigate the sensory characteristics of sweeteners. , 1987 .

[4]  P. Howgate,et al.  Patterns of odour similarity among carbonyls and their mixtures , 1992 .

[5]  Monique M. Raats,et al.  A NEW SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR CONSENSUS IN GENERALIZED PROCRUSTES ANALYSIS , 1992 .

[6]  L. M. Poste,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling – Sensory Analysis of Yoghurt , 1988 .

[7]  Pascal Schlich,et al.  Defining and Validating Assessor Compromises About Product Distances and Attribute Correlations , 1996 .

[8]  John W. Hall,et al.  Comparison of projective mapping and sorting data collection and multivariate methodologies for identification of similarity-of-use of snack bars , 1998 .

[9]  Hildegarde Heymann,et al.  A COMPARISON OF FREE CHOICE PROFILING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING OF VANILLA SAMPLES , 1994 .

[10]  M. Falahee,et al.  Consumer appraisal of drinking water: Multidimensional scaling analysis , 1995 .

[11]  B. P. Klein,et al.  EFFICIENCY OF A CYCLIC DESIGN AND A MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING SENSORY ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE IN THE STUDY OF SALT TASTE , 1995 .

[12]  Einar Risvik,et al.  Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research , 1994 .

[13]  Ingwer Borg,et al.  Measuring the Similarity of MDS Configurations. , 1985, Multivariate behavioral research.

[14]  J. Chauhan,et al.  Descriptive profiling versus direct similarity assessments of soft drinks , 1986 .

[15]  Gillian M. Arnold,et al.  A comparison of the aromas of six coffees characterised by conventional profiling, free‐choice profiling and similarity scaling methods , 1985 .

[16]  P. Hartwig,et al.  Flavor characteristics of lactic, malic, citric, and acetic acids at various pH levels , 1995 .

[17]  Anthony A. Williams,et al.  The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports , 1984 .

[18]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  CONSISTENCY OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING MODELS DERIVED FROM ODOR SORTING , 1990 .

[19]  Beverly J. Tepper,et al.  PERCEPTION OF FAT IN A MILK MODEL SYSTEM USING MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING , 1996 .

[20]  Ramón Aparicio,et al.  Sensory authentication of European extra-virgin olive oil varieties by mathematical procedures , 1996 .

[21]  Pascal Schlich,et al.  Selection and classification of volatile compounds of apricot using the RV coefficient , 1989 .