Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 October 2010
Received in revised form 8 April 2011
Accepted 11 April 2011
Available online 14 April 2011
Keywords:
Consumer studies
Product development
Optimization
Check-all-that-apply
Projective mapping
a b s t r a c t
The aim of the present work was to identify consumers ideal product by three consumer proling techniques and to compare the agreement among the three techniques. Two studies were carried out in
which consumers evaluated seven samples of orange-avoured powdered drinks. In the rst study 108
consumers scored their overall liking, whereas in the second one three groups of 50 consumers evaluated
the sensory characteristics of the samples using projective mapping, a check-all-that-apply question or
intensity scales. After completing the task consumers were asked to identify their ideal product.
The different approaches yielded similar information regarding the sensory characteristics of the products and consumers ideal product, providing similar recommendations for product improvement. However, they differed in the position of consumers optimum product within the sensory space dened by
the sensory characteristics of the evaluated samples. Projective mapping identied the consensus position of the ideal product within the range of sensory characteristics of the evaluated samples, providing
similar results than external preference mapping. Differences and similarities between the methodologies are discussed, as well as potential applications.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Despite the fact that new food product innovation and development is necessary for food companies to survive in todays highly
competitive market, the vast majority of new food products fail
(Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003). The low innovation and high failure rate of new food products suggests that the methodology used
for new food product development is seriously awed (Rudolph,
1995; Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003). Thus, product development
teams need more efcient product development techniques.
One of the most important steps of new product development
process is product optimization. This step aims to identify ideal
products, i.e. products that maximize consumers acceptance, usually measured as liking (Lagrange & Norback, 1987). The most common approach to product optimization is to ask consumers to rate
their overall liking of a large set of products and characterize the
sensory properties of those products using a trained assessors
panel. Then, both data sets are combined using regression analysis
to identify the sensory characteristics of the ideal product (van
Trijp, Punter, Mickartz, & Kruithof, 2007). One of the most common
methodologies during this step of product optimization is external
Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 2 9245735; fax: +598 2 9241906.
E-mail address: gares@fq.edu.uy (G. Ares).
0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.04.004
582
space (Ennis, Palen, & Mullen, 1988; Ennis & Rousseau, 2004; Rousseau
& Ennis, 2008; Thompson, Drake, Lopetcharat, & Yates, 2004).
In these approaches consumers are only asked about their liking, and therefore information about how they perceive the sensory characteristics of the products is not gathered. However,
trained assessors could describe the product differently or take
into account attributes that may be irrelevant for consumers (ten
Kleij & Musters, 2003). Besides, since liking data is regressed onto
principal components, it could be difcult to translate preference
directions into product sensory attributes (Guinard, Uotani, & Schlich, 2001). Moreover, during food product development the application of quantitative descriptive analysis with trained assessors
remains a very time-consuming approach since the vocabulary
and associated training must be adapted to each product (Faye
et al., 2006).
Another possible approach for product optimization would be
asking consumers to describe the sensory characteristics of the
products and also to identify their ideal product. According to Risvik, McEwan, and Rodbotten (1997) the best way to understand
consumer preferences is consumer data. In particular, getting consumer feedback about sensory description of products has become
of great interest in the last decade. In this context, several consumer proling methodologies have increased popularity, among
which intensity scales, check-all-that-apply questions and projective mapping have had a central role.
Asking consumers to rate the intensity of different sensory attributes using scales has been reported to be a good alternative to the
classical sensory prole provided by trained assessors (Husson, Le
Dien, & Pags, 2001; Worch, L, & Punter, 2010). Husson et al.
(2001) and Worch et al. (2010) reported that sensory proles obtained with consumers using intensity scales meet discrimination
and reproducibility requirements, being an interesting alternative
when companies face difculties to use trained assessors panels.
Moskowitz (1996) also concluded that consumers are able to assess the sensory characteristics of products using this type of
methodology.
Check-all-that-apply questions (CATA) consist of a list of words
or phrases from which respondents should select all the words
they consider appropriate to describe a product. This type of question has been used in consumer studies to determine which sensory attributes consumers perceive in different food products
(Adams, Williams, Lancaster, & Foley, 2007; Ares, Deliza, Barreiro,
Gimnez, & Gmbaro, 2010; Meullenet, Lee, & Dooley, 2008a).
Compared to just-about-right or intensity questions, CATA questions seem easier and more natural for consumers (Adams et al.,
2007).
Another alternative for consumer proling is the application of
projective mapping to quantify individual perception of overall
similarity and dissimilarity between products (Risvik, McEwan,
Colwill, Rogers, & Lyon, 1994). In this methodology consumers
are asked to provide a two dimensional projection of a group of
samples, according to their own criteria (Risvik et al., 1997). This
technique might be a useful and simple way to evaluate consumer
perception of food products.
Few studies have been published reporting the identication of
ideal products based on consumers perception of the sensory characteristics of food products. Epkong, Ngarmsak, and Winger (2006)
reported that consumers and trained assessors provided similar
and suitable information for the optimization of mango gel snacks.
Furthermore, van Trijp et al. (2007) used intensity and just-aboutright scales to optimize the sensory characteristics of natural yogurts, reporting that both methodologies yielded valid and similar
results.
In this context, the aims of the present work were to: (a) study
the ability of three consumer proling techniques (intensity scales,
check-all-that-apply questions and projective mapping) to identify
that they had to complete the task according to their own criteria
and that there were no right or wrong answers. They were also explained that two samples close together on the sheet would correspond to very similar samples and that if they perceived two
samples as very different they had to locate them very distant from
each other. After completing the task, consumers were asked to position their ideal drink on the sheet, relatively to the actual products they have just evaluated.
For each consumer map, the X and Y coordinates of each sample
were determined, considering the left bottom corner of the sheet
as origin of the coordinate system.
2.2.3. Check-all-that-apply
Consumers had to answer a check-all-that-apply (CATA) question with 19 hedonic and sensory attributes to describe the drinks.
The CATA question was composed of the following terms: very
sweet, sweet, not much sweet, bitter, not much orange avour,
off-avour, dark colour, light colour, diluted, yummy, disgusting,
orange avour, articial avour, natural, rough, soft, intense avour and aftertaste. These words were selected based on results
from a previous study in which consumers provided words to describe orange-avoured powdered drinks using an open-ended
question. Consumers were explained that they had to check all
the terms they considered appropriate to describe each of the
drinks. After evaluating the six samples consumers were asked to
check all the terms they consider appropriate to describe their
ideal orange-avoured powdered drink.
2.2.4. Intensity scales
Consumers had to rate the intensity of seven sensory attributes
using unstructured 10-cm scales. The attributes considered were
the following: colour, sweetness, orange avour, acidity, bitterness,
articial avour and off-avour. These attributes are the ones commonly used in quantitative consumers tests of the category when
gathering information about attribute levels for guiding product
development. After evaluating the seven samples consumers were
asked to rate the intensity of each of the evaluated attributes for
their ideal orange-avoured powdered drink. This procedure is also
known as the Ideal prole method.
2.3. Data analysis
2.3.1. Overall liking data
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on consumer
overall liking scores from consumers considering consumer and
sample as sources of variation. Mean ratings were calculated and
honestly signicant differences were checked using Tukeys test
(p < 0.05).
Internal preference mapping was carried out using a principal
component analysis on the correlation matrix of consumer individual liking data.
Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify groups
of consumers with different preference patterns. This analysis
was performed on standardized liking scores, considering Euclidean distances and average linkage as agglomeration criterion.
2.3.2. Projective mapping
Data from the projective mapping task consists on the X and Y
coordinates of the drinks in the sheet, for each consumer. This data
was analyzed using Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA), as suggested
by Pags (2005).
In order to incorporate consumers descriptions in the samples
map obtained using MFA, the frequency table containing consumers descriptions was considered as a set of supplementary variables in MFA. This implies that this frequency table did not
participate in the construction of the MFA factors but consumers
583
consumers coordinates together. The advantage of this methodology is that it allows comparing the samples prole in the different
methodologies, in this case projective mapping, CATA and intensity
scales (Le Dien & Pags, 2003). Consumers ideal product was considered as supplementary individual and projected on the sensory
space dened by the evaluated products.
(a) 1
D im 1 ( 1 7 . 7 %)
584
-1
-1
Table 1
Mean overall liking scores for the seven evaluated orangeavoured powdered drinks.
Sample
Overall liking*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.2c
4.5b,c
5.2a,b
2.7d
5.5a
4.2c
4.3c
Different superscripts within a column indicate signicant differences according to Tukeys test (p 6 0.05).
*
Evaluated in a structured 9-point hedonic scale.
(b) 10
3
1
Dim 2 (17.7%)
3. Results
D im 1 ( 3 3 .6 %)
0
7
5
-5
6
-10
-15
-10
-5
10
15
Dim 1 (33.6%)
Fig. 1. Internal preference map of consumers liking scores of the seven evaluated
orange-avoured drink powders: (a) consumers representation and (b) samples
representation.
585
(a)
5
Dim 2 (23.8%)
Ideal
1
0
-2
-1
-1
-2
Dim 1 (28.6%)
1
Yummy
Concentrated
(b)
Sweet
Very sweet
Dark colour
Dim 2 (23.8%)
Natural
Orange f lavour
Of f -f lavour
Acid
Not very sweet
0
0
-1
With pulp
Light colour
Disgusting
Bitter
Sof t
Dim 1 (28.6%)
Fig. 2. Representation of: (a) the seven orange-avoured powdered juice drinks and consumers ideal product and (b) the terms used to describe the samples, in the rst two
dimensions of the MFA plot of data from projective mapping.
the rst two dimensions of the MFA of the projective mapping task
(Fig. 2). One group composed of samples 2 and 7, another one of
samples 1, 3 and 5, whereas two other groups composed of only
one sample (samples 6 and 4) were located apart from the rest.
Respondents provided between one and six terms to describe
each of the evaluated drinks. Table 2 shows the terms used by consumers to describe the samples. Eighteen terms were mentioned
by more than 10% of the consumers. These terms were related to
hedonic and sensory characteristics of the drinks, particularly
appearance and avour attributes. The most frequently used terms
were not much orange avour, sweet and acid. This suggests that orange avour, sweetness and acidity might be among the most relevant sensory characteristics of orange-avoured powdered drinks
for consumers.
As shown in Fig. 2, sample 6 was described by consumers as disgusting and having orange pulp. Sample 4 was located at negative
values of the second dimension, being described as diluted as having not much orange avour. Meanwhile, samples 2 and 7 were perceived as bitter, acid and not very sweet, showing a clearly different
sensory prole. Finally, samples 1, 3 and 5 were located in the rst
Table 2
Terms used by consumers for describing the drinks before the projective mapping
task and number of mention for each of the samples.
Term
Sample
1
8
11
4
3
6
6
2
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
4
1
17
4
2
2
1
4
0
5
1
4
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
2
1
2
5
7
1
8
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
3
21
0
0
13
2
0
0
5
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
5
0
5
6
6
3
5
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
2
0
8
1
1
6
4
2
3
1
2
1
6
1
2
3
7
2
0
0
1
8
8
4
3
3
4
2
0
5
3
3
4
5
0
2
0
0
586
scores. Therefore, considering the consensus position of the consumers ideal product in the projective mapping task enabled the
identication of zones of maximum liking in the sensory map, as
well as the sensory attributes responsible for consumers liking.
3.3. Check-all-that-apply-question
Consumers used between 1 and 11 terms to describe the drinks
in the check-all-that-apply question. The most frequently used
term was articial avour, followed by light colour, not much orange
avour and dark colour. Meanwhile, the least used term was bitter,
followed by very sweet, rough and off-avour. Table 3 shows the
number of consumers who used each of the terms of the CATA
question to describe the seven evaluated drinks. Signicant differences between the samples were found in the frequency in which
the 19 terms of the CATA question were used to describe the
(a)
2
Dim 2 (26.1%)
7
Ideal
0
0
-1
-1
Dim 1 (55.0%)
1
(b)
Acid
Light colour
Dim 2 (26.1%)
Bitter
Orange flavour
Yummy
Natural Intense flavour
Off-flavour
Aftertaste
0
-1
10
Diluted
Disgusting
Not much orange
flavour
Rough
Artificial flavour
Sweet
Very sweet
Soft
Dark colour
-1
Dim 1 (55.0%)
Fig. 3. Representation of: (a) the seven orange-avoured powdered juice drinks and consumers ideal product and (b) the terms used to describe the samples, in the rst two
dimensions of the MCA plot of data from the CATA question.
587
with the terms intense avour (r = 0.78), sweet (r = 0.87), orange avour (r = 0.82), suggesting that these sensory attributes might be
drivers of liking. These results are in agreement with those from
the projective mapping task.
As shown in Fig. 3, the ideal product was located on the positive
side of the rst dimension, close to samples 3 and 5. The location of
the ideal product suggests that consumers expect sweet and intense orange-avoured powdered drinks.
The ideal product was located further apart from all the evaluated samples than in the map from projective mapping (Fig. 2).
This suggests that according to data from the CATA question the
samples were less similar to consumers ideal when compared to
data from projective mapping. This result could be related to the
fact that counts for the ideal product clearly showed that consumers expect powdered drinks to be sweet, yummy with natural and
intense orange avour. However, none of the evaluated samples
showed a sensory prole close to this, since most of them were
perceived by consumers as articial.
samples (cf. Table 3), suggesting that this type of question was able
to detect differences in consumers perception of the drinks, particularly differences in their sensory and hedonic characteristics.
The rst and second dimension of the Multiple Correspondence
Analysis (MCA) calculated from CATA counts accounted for 55.0%
and 26.1% of the variance of the experimental data, respectively.
According to hierarchical cluster analysis, results from MCA performed on CATA questions sorted the drinks into four groups
(Fig. 3). Sample 4 was sorted apart from the rest of the samples,
being described using the terms disgusting, not very sweet, diluted
and not much orange avour. Meanwhile, samples 2 and 7 were described with the terms bitter, light colour, and acid. Samples 3 and 5
were grouped together, being described with the terms sweet, very
sweet, yummy, orange avour, aftertaste and intense avour. Finally,
samples 1 and 6 were located in an intermediate position.
The correlation of these hedonic terms with sensory attributes
from the CATA question enabled the identication of drivers of liking for this product. The term yummy was positively correlated
(a)
2
1
Dim 2 (33.5%)
7
6
Ideal
0
-2
-3
-1
3
1
-1
Dim 1 (46.9%)
1
(b)
0.5
Bitter
Acid
Off-flavour
Dim 2 (33.5 %)
Orange flavour
Sweetness
-0.5
Colour intensity
Artificial flavour
-1
-1
-0.5
0
Dim 1 (46.9 %)
0.5
Fig. 4. Representation of: (a) the seven orange-avoured powdered juice drinks and consumers ideal product and (b) the terms used to describe the samples, in the rst two
dimensions of the PCA plot of data from intensity scales.
588
Fig. 6. Representation of the attributes evaluated using a CATA question (in gray) and intensity scales (in black) in the HMFA plot performed on data from the three evaluated
methodologies.
589
Table 3
Results of the check-all-that-apply question. Number of consumers who used each
term to describe the seven evaluated orange-avoured powdered drink samples.
Term
Very sweet***
Sweet***
Not very sweet***
Bitter***
Not much orange avour***
Off-avour***
Dark colour***
Light colour***
Diluted***
Yummy***
Disgusting***
Orange avour***
Articial avour***
Natural***
Acid***
Aftertaste**
Rough***
Soft***
Intense avour***
**
***
Sample
1
Ideal
15
17
9
2
22
8
15
17
16
8
12
12
36
5
9
7
4
13
7
6
12
17
10
17
11
3
43
8
8
11
13
29
5
28
4
7
7
12
22
22
4
1
19
6
24
10
2
13
6
14
33
5
4
7
10
15
19
0
6
36
4
39
7
3
26
46
0
32
3
30
1
1
1
5
20
0
13
27
6
0
11
7
38
4
4
26
6
17
32
8
9
8
13
13
15
3
8
22
8
23
20
29
2
13
8
29
8
38
6
11
9
16
9
7
6
15
16
6
14
11
2
32
13
15
13
19
23
5
22
10
12
10
8
0
44
8
0
0
0
29
12
0
49
0
50
0
50
12
1
2
32
13
590
Table 4
Average scores and standard deviations (between brackets) for the sensory attributes of the seven orange-avoured powdered drinks evaluated by consumers using intensity
scales.
Attribute*
Sweetness
Orange avour
Colour
Articial avour
Off-avour
Acid
Bitter
Sample
1
Ideal
6.0c (2.5)
3.5b (1.9)
5.4b (1.9)
7.0a,b (1.7)
3.8a,b (2.9)
3.4b (2.3)
2.4a,b (2.2)
4.1b (2.4)
4.7b (2.5)
2.9a (2.1)
6.4a,b (2.7)
4.6a,b,c (3.2)
6.4c (2.6)
3.3a,b (2.6)
6.7c (2.3)
4.3b (2.5)
6.0b,c (1.6)
6.8a,b (2.0)
4.6a,b,c (3.1)
3.5b (2.4)
2.3a,b (2.0)
1.9a (2.2)
1.1a (1.2)
3.1a (1.8)
7.6b (2.5)
4.5a,b,c (3.4)
1.0a (1.2)
2.5a,b (2.9)
6.2c (2.1)
4.8b (2.8)
7.6d (1.5)
6.2a (2.3)
2.9a (2.8)
3.2b (2.3)
2.1a (2.2)
3.9b (2.4)
3.6b (2.7)
6.6c,d (1.4)
7.2a,b (2.3)
5.6c (3.2)
3.9b (2.9)
3.5b (2.8)
4.3b (2.4)
4.3b (2.5)
3.5a (1.9)
6.4a,b (2.6)
4.0a,b (3.4)
5.6c (2.9)
3.1a,b (2.6)
5.8
8.6
6.3
0.0
0.0
4.6
1.6
(1.6)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(1.8)
(1.4)
Different letters within a row imply signicant difference according to Tukeys test (p < 0.05).
Evaluated in 10 cm unstructured intensity scales.
The challenge, then, would be the selection of the samples. Furthermore, asking consumers to rate or check multiple attributes
on an ideal product might be a hard task, which might induce an
attempt to be rational, while consumer decisions/choices tend to
invoke more emotional responses. This can be another point in favour of Napping, as it might be a more intuitive, easier task for
consumers based on their holistic perception of the samples, simplifying the nding of the ideal point in direct comparison with the
real products, rather than thinking about individual attributes. The
consensus position of the ideal sample in the MFA of the projective
mapping task was very close to the zone of maximum liking in
external preference mapping and indicated that the best products
were those with the highest overall liking scores.
It is important to take into account that in the present study,
consumers preference patterns were not highly heterogeneous,
which allowed working with the consensus ideal product. In future
work it would be necessary to study the variability in consumers
ideal products and to investigate the applicability of this approach
to products with a highly segmented market.
4. Conclusions
Projective mapping, check-all-that-apply questions and intensity scales were able to detect differences in consumers perception
of the sensory characteristics of the evaluated orange-avoured
powdered drinks. The three methodologies provided similar product spaces, suggesting that the three consumer panels were consistent in terms of their description of the products.
Good correlations between the methods in terms of the sensory
maps were obtained, the description of the samples and the identication of drivers of liking were found. Thus, choice between the
three evaluated methodologies for consumer proling might depend on practical considerations such as ease of use and consumers understanding.
However, differences between the methodologies were identied. Projective mapping/Napping enabled the identication of
an ideal product within the range of sensory characteristics of the
evaluated samples, providing very similar results to those of external preference mapping. Meanwhile, considering data from checkall-that-apply questions and intensity scales the ideal product was
located outside the sensory space dened by the evaluated samples.
This could be explained by the fact that several terms with strong
hedonic connotation were considered and that none of the samples
were close to the sensory prole of the ideal product, particularly in
terms of their articial avour. It is interesting to notice that orange-avoured powdered drinks would probably never be perceived as having natural or non-articial avour. Therefore, for
this category of products, CATA and intensity scales might not be
appropriate in this context since consumers indicate their ideal,
591
Husson, F., Josse, J., L, S., & Mazet, J. (2007). FactoMineR: factor analysis and data
mining with R. R package version 1.04, URL http://cran.R-project.org/
package=FactoMineR.
Husson, F., Le Dien, S., & Pags, J. (2001). Which value can be granted to sensory
proles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and
Preference, 12, 291296.
ISO. (1988). Sensory analysis: General guidance for the design of test rooms, ISO
8589. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Lagrange, V., & Norback, J. P. (1987). Product optimization and the acceptor set size.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 119136.
Lawlor, J. B., & Delahunty, C. M. (2000). The sensory prole and consumer
preference for ten specialty cheeses. International Journal of Dairy Technology,
53, 2836.
Le Dien, S., & Pags, J. (2003). Hierarchical multiple factor analysis: Application to
the comparison of sensory proles. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 397403.
L, S., & Husson, F. (2008). SensoMineR: a package for sensory data analysis. Journal
of Sensory Studies, 23, 1425.
L, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate
analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1).
McEwan, J. A. (1996). Preference mapping for product optimization. In T. Naes & E.
Risvik (Eds.), Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science (pp. 7180).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Meullenet, J.F., Lee, Y., & Dooley, L. (2008a). The application of check-all-that-apply
consumer proling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its
comparison to classical external preference mapping. In: Proceedings of the
9th Sensometric Meeting. St. Chaterines, Canada, 2023 July, 2008.
Meullenet, J. F., Lovely, C., Threlfall, R., Morris, J. R., & Striegler, R. K. (2008b). An
ideal point density plot method for determining an optimal sensory prole for
Muscadine grape juice. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 210219.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1996). Experts versus consumers: A comparison. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 11, 1937.
Pags, J. (2005). Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using
multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the
Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 642649.
Perrin, L., Symoneaux, R., Matre, I., Asselin, C., Jourjon, F., & Pags, J. (2008).
Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping_procedure:
Case of 10 wines from Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 111.
R Development Core Team. (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J. S., Rogers, R., & Lyon, D. H. (1994). Projective
mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and
Preference, 5, 263269.
Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., & Rodbotten, M. (1997). Evaluation of sensory proling and
projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 6371.
Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2008). An application of Landscape Segmentation
Analysis_to blind and branded data. IFPress, 11, 23.
Rudolph, M. J. (1995). The food development process. British Food Journal, 97, 311.
Schlich, P. (1995). Preference mapping: Relating consumer preferences to sensory or
instrumental measurements. In P. Etivant & P. Schreier (Eds.), Bioavour95.
Analysis/Precursor Studies/Biotechnology (pp. 231245). Versailles, France: INRA
Editions.
Stewart-Knox, B. J., & Mitchell, P. (2003). What separates the winners from the
losers in new food product development? Trends in Food Science & Technology,
14, 5864.
ten Kleij, F., & Musters, P. A. D. (2003). Text analysis of open-ended survey
responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and
Preference, 14, 4352.
Thompson, J. L., Drake, M. A., Lopetcharat, K., & Yates, M. D. (2004). Preference
mapping of commercial chocolate milks. Journal of Food Science, 69, 406413.
van Trijp, H. C. M., Punter, P. H., Mickartz, F., & Kruithof, L. (2007). The quest for the
ideal product: Comparing different methods and approaches. Food Quality and
Preference, 18, 729740.
Varela, P., Ares, G., Gimnez, A., & Gmbaro, A. (2010). Inuence of brand
information on consumers expectations and liking of powdered drinks in
central location tests. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 873880.
Worch, T., L, S., & Punter, P. (2010). How reliable are the consumers? Comparison
of sensory proles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference, 21,
309318.