Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings

The purpose of this study is to compare a free sorting task based on similarities to a descriptive analysis, both applied to the visual description of plastic pieces. On the one hand, 150 consumers sort 26 pieces varying along 3 factors: opacifying agent, coloring agent, and grain type. Multidimensional scaling allows the perceptive dimensions to be retrieved from the similarities between the plastic pieces. A sensory interpretation of these dimensions is made possible by the consumers' verbal descriptions of their own groups. The proximity of the subjects' sorting results reveals the homogeneity of their perception of the products. On the other hand, 12 trained panelists generate and rate 8 visual attributes to describe a representative 8-piece subset of the 26 original samples, reduced to suit the descriptive analysis constraints. Eventually, both methods lead to the same conclusions in terms of piece configuration, associated perceptive interpretation and perception-process parameter relations.

[1]  J. Kruskal Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[2]  G. Soete,et al.  Perceptual scaling of synthesized musical timbres: Common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject classes , 1995, Psychological research.

[3]  S. Chollet,et al.  Le degré d'expertise a-t-il une influence sur la perception olfactive? Quelques éléments de réponse dans le domaine du vin , 2000 .

[4]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception , 1995 .

[5]  Mark Holliins,et al.  Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: A multidimensional scaling analysis , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  Susan S. Schiffman,et al.  Qualitative differences among sweeteners , 1979, Physiology & Behavior.

[7]  William M. Rand,et al.  Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods , 1971 .

[8]  G. Solomon Psychology of novice and expert wine talk , 1990 .

[9]  H. Lawless Flavor Description of White Wine by “Expert” and Nonexpert Wine Consumers , 1984 .

[10]  H. Lawless Exploration of fragrance categories and ambiguous odors using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis , 1989 .

[11]  Richard Popper,et al.  Analyzing Differences Among Products and Panelists by Multidimensional Scaling , 1996 .

[12]  Pauline Faye,et al.  Sensory evaluation of automotive fabrics: the contribution of categorization tasks and non verbal information to set-up a descriptive method of tactile properties , 2001 .

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

[14]  C. Mallows,et al.  A Method for Comparing Two Hierarchical Clusterings , 1983 .

[15]  T. Næs,et al.  Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science , 1996 .

[16]  Y. Escoufier LE TRAITEMENT DES VARIABLES VECTORIELLES , 1973 .

[17]  Hildegarde Heymann,et al.  MULTIDIMENSIONAL SORTING, SIMILARITY SCALING AND FREE‐CHOICE PROFILING OF GRAPE JELLIES , 2002 .

[18]  Paul E. Green,et al.  A Note on Proximity Measures and Cluster Analysis , 1969 .

[19]  Sylvie Issanchou,et al.  Could selection tests detect the future performance of descriptive panellists , 1996 .