УДК 543.92:664
Библ. 54.
DOI: 10.21323/2071-2499-2022-5-46-49

Оперативные методы сенсорного анализа: перспективы использования «всего, что применимо»

Лазарев А.А., канд. техн. наук, Кузнецова Т.Г., доктор вет. наук
ФНЦ пищевых систем им. В.М. Горбатова
Ключевые слова: органолептические свойства, пищевые продукты, CATA, потребительская оценка, оперативные методы,
Реферат:
Актуализация и реализация современных методов сенсорного анализа на отечественных предприятиях пищевой отрасли остается трудной или, в некоторых случаях, ирреальной задачей. Менеджмент предприятий в основном полагается на директ-маркетинг (особенно при разработке и оптимизации продуктов в соответствии с требованиями потребителей), оставляя сенсорному анализу нишу условного контроля органолептических характеристик. В это время за рубежом, методы сенсорного анализа, не только используются наравне с маркетинговыми подходами, но и модифицируются, перекрывая область последних. В обзоре представлен один из современных оперативных методов – CATA («check-all-that-apply» или «Отметьте все, что применимо»). Отражены принципы его реализации, перечислены требования к субъектам и объектам метода, приведены основные подходы в использовании терминологии. Показаны варианты интерпретации выходных данных (результатов оценки) и наиболее распространенные статистические процедуры для их обработки.

Operative methods for sensory analysis: prospects of using «all-that-apply»

Lazarev А.А., Kuznetsova T.G.
Gorbatov Research Center for Food Systems
Key words: CATA, consumer assessment, food products, organoleptic properties, operative methods
Summary:
Actualization and realization of modern methods for sensory analysis in domestic food industry enterprises remain to be a difficult and in some cases unreal task. Management of enterprises relies mainly on direct marketing (especially in the product development and optimization according to the consumers’ requirements) setting aside a niche of the conditional control of organoleptic characteristics for sensory analysis. At the same time, methods of sensory analysis are used abroad not only equally with marketing approaches but also are modified overlapping the area of the latter. The review presents one of the modern operative methods «check-all-that-apply» (CATA). Principles of its realization are reflected, requirements for subjects and objects of the method are listed, and the main approaches in the terminology use are presented. Variants of interpretation of output data (assessment results) and the prevalent statistical procedures for their processing are shown.

СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ / REFERENCES:

1. Grunert, K.G. The common ground between sensory and consumer science / K.G. Grunert // Current Opinion in Food Science. – 2015. – № 3. – Р. 19-22.

2. Stone, H. Sensory Evaluation Practices (3rd ed.) / H. Stone, J.L. Sidel. – San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004. – 311 p.

3. Brockhoff, P.B. Taking individual scaling differences into account by analyzing profile data with the Mixed Assessor Model / P.B. Brockhoff, P. Schlich, I. Skovgaard // Food Quality and Preference. – 2015. – № 39. – Р. 156-166.

4. Murray, J.M. Descriptive analysis: Past, present and future / J.M. Murray, C.M. Delahunty, I.A. Baxter // Food Research International. – 2001. – № 34. – Р. 461-471.

5. Alcantara, M.D. Rapid and versatile sensory descriptive methods – an updating of sensory science / M.D. Alcantara, D.D.G.C. Freitas-Sá // Brazilian Journal of Food Technology. – 2018. – № 21. – e2016179.

6. Olsen, N.V. Design thinking and food innovation / N.V. Olsen // Trends in Food Science & Technology. – 2015. – № 41 (2). – Р. 182-187.

7. Valentin, D. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science / D. Valentin, S. Chollet, M. Lelie`vre, H. Abdi // International Journal Food Science Technology. – 2012. – № 47. – Р. 1563-1578.

8. Teillet, E. Sensory methodologies and the taste of water / E. Teillet, P. Schlich, C. Urbano, S. Cordelle, E. Guichard // Food Quality and Preference. – 2010. – № 21. – Р. 967–976.

9. Moussaoui, K.A. Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis / K.A. Moussaoui, P. Varela // Food Quality and Preference. – 2010. – № 21. – Р. 1088–1099.

10. Dehlholm, C. Rapid descriptive sensory methods – Comparison of Free Multiple Sorting, Partial Napping, Napping, Flash Profiling and conventional profiling / C. Dehlholm, P. Brockhoff, L. Meinert, M. Aaslyng, W. Bredie // Food Quality and Preference. – 2012b. – № 26. – Р. 267–277.

11. Symoneaux, R. Comment analysis of consumer’s likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples / R. Symoneaux, M.V. Galmarini, E. Mehinagic // Food Quality and Preference. – 2012. – № 24. – Р. 59–66.

12. Faye, P. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping / P. Faye, D. Bremaud, E. Teillet, P. Courcoux, A. Giboreau, H. Nicod // Food Quality and Preference. – 2006. – № 17. – Р. 604–614.

13. Carmines, E.G. Reliability and Validity Assessment / E.G. Carmines, R.A. Zeller. – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1979. – 72 p.

14. Hopfer, H. A summary of projective mapping observations – The effect of replicates and shape, and individual performance measurements / H. Hopfer, H. Heymann // Food Quality and Preference. – 2012. – № 28. – Р. 164–181.

15. Veinand, B. Highlight of important product characteristics for consumers. Comparison of three sensory descriptive methods performed by consumers / B. Veinand, C. Godefroy, C. Adam, J. Delarue // Food Quality and Preference. – 2011. – № 22. – Р. 474–485.

16. Ares, G. Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions / G. Ares, A. Tarrega, L. Izquierdo, S.R. Jaeger // Food Quality and Preference. – 2014. – № 31. – Р. 135-141.

17. Varela, P. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization / P. Varela, G. Ares // Food Research International. – 2012. – № 48. – Р. 893-908.

18. Ares, G. Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: Fueling a long lasting debate in the field / G. Ares, P. Varela // Food Quality and Preference. – 2017. – № 61. – Р. 9-86.

19. Jaeger, S.R. Concurrent elicitation of hedonic and CATA/RATA responses with Chinese and Korean consumers: hedonic bias is unlikely to occur / S.R. Jaeger, K.O. Kim, S.M. Lee, D.C. Hunter, K. Kam, S.L. Chheang, D. Jin, P.Y. Lee, Y. Xia, G. Ares // Food Quality and Preference. – 2017. – № 56. – Р. 130-137.

20. Bruzzone, F. Consumers’ texture perception of milk desserts II – Comparison with trained assessors’ data / F. Bruzzone, G. Ares, A. Gimenez // Journal of Texture Studies. – 2012. – № 43. – Р. 214–226.

21. Giacalone, D. «All-In-One Test» (AI1): A rapid and easily applicable approach to consumer product testing / D. Giacalone, W.L.P. Bredie, M.B. Frost // Food Quality and Preference. – 2013. – № 27. – Р. 108–119.

22. Ares, G. Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception / G. Ares, R. Deliza, C. Barreiro, A. Gimenez, A. Gambaro // Food Quality and Preference. – 2010b. – № 21. – Р. 417–426.

23. Dooley, L. The application of check-all-thatapply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping / L. Dooley, Y. Lee, J.-F. Meullenet // Food Quality and Preference. – 2010. – № 21. – Р. 394–401.

24. Plaehn, D. CATA penalty/reward / D. Plaehn // Food Quality and Preference. – 2012. – № 24. – Р. 141–152.

25. Blancher, G. A method to investigate the stability of a sorting map / G. Blancher, B. Clavier, C. Egoroff, K. Duineveld, J. Parcon // Food Quality and Preference. – 2012. – № 23. – Р. 36-43.

26. Vidal, L. Stability of sample configurations from projective mapping: how many consumers are necessary? / L. Vidal, R.S. Cadena, L. Antu´nez, A. Gime´nez, P. Varela, G. Ares // Food Quality and Preference. – 2014. – № 34. – Р. 79-87.

27. Ares, G. Methodological challenges in sensory characterization / G. Ares // Current Opinion in Food Science. – 2015. – № 3. – Р. 1-5.

28. Eriksson, L. Design of Experiments: Principles and Practice / L. Eriksson, E. Johansson, N. Kettaneh-Wold, C. Wikstrom, S. Wold. – Umea, Sweden: Umetrics AB, 2000. – 320 p.

29. Ares, G. Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping / G. Ares, P. Varela, G. Rado, A. Gimenez // Food Quality and Preference. – 2011. – № 22. – Р. 581-591.

30. Ares, G. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization / G. Ares, S.R. Jaeger // Food Quality and Preference. – 2013. – № 28. – Р. 141-153.

31. Meullenet, J.-F. Experimental consideration for the use of check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions to describe the sensory properties of orange juices / J.-F. Meullenet // Eighth Rose-Marie Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. – Florence, Italy, 2009.

32. Jaeger, S.R. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization by consumers: Investigations into the number of terms used in CATA questions / S.R. Jaeger, M.K. Beresford, A.G. Paisley, L. Antúnez, L. Vidal, R.S. Cadena, A. Giménez, G. Ares // Food Quality and Preference. – 2015. – № 42. – Р. 154-164.

33. Oliveira, D. Sugar reduction in fruit nectars: Impact on consumers’ sensory and hedonic perception / D. Oliveira, J. Galhardo, G. Ares, L.M. Cunha, R. Deliza // Food Research International. – 2018. – № 107. – Р. 371-377.

34. Liversedge, S.P. The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements / S.P. Liversedge, I.D. Gilchrist, S. Everling. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. – 1027 p.

35. Koob, G. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience / G. Koob, M. Le Moal, R. Thompson. – London: Academic Press, 2010. – 1816 p.

36. Krosnick, J.A. Survey research / J.A. Krosnick // Annual Review of Psychology. – 1999. – № 50. – Р. 537–567.

37. Krosnick, J.A. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys / J.A. Krosnick // Applied Cognitive Psychology. – 1991. – № 5. – Р. 213-236.

38. Rasinski, K.A. Do respondents really «Mark All That Apply» on self-administered questions? / K.A. Rasinski, D. Mingay, N.M. Bradburn // Public Opinion Quarterly. – 1994. – № 58. – Р. 400-408.

39. Bradburn, N.M. Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design – For Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires, Rev. edn. / N.M. Bradburn, S. Sudman, B. Wansink. – San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2004. – 448 p.

40. Reinbach, H.C. Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and NappingR / H.C. Reinbach, D. Giacalone, L.M. Ribeiro, W.L.P. Bredie, M.B. Frost // Food Quality and Preference. – 2014. – № 32. – Р. 160-166.

41. Smyth, J.D. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys / J.D. Smyth, D.A. Dillman, L.M. Christian, M.J. Stern // Public Opinion Quarterly. – 2006. – № 70. – Р. 66-77.

42. Nielsen, J. Eyetracking Web Usability / J. Nielsen, K. Pernice. – Berkeley, CA: New Riders Pub, 2009. – 437 p.

43. Campo, E. Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequency based descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines / E. Campo, J. Ballester, J. Langlois, C. Dacremont, D. Valentin // Food Quality and Preference. – 2010. – № 21. – Р. 44-55.

44. Ares, G. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts / G. Ares, C. Barreiro, R. Deliza, A. Gimenez, A. Gambaro // Journal of Sensory Studies. – 2010a. – № 25. – Р. 67-86.

45. Meilgaard, M.C. Sensory evaluation techniques (4rd ed.) / M.C. Meilgaard, G.V. Civille, B.T. Carr. – Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007. – 464 p.

46. Clark, C.C. Limiting response alternatives in timeintensity scaling: An examination of the halo-dumping effect / C.C. Clark, H.T. Lawless // Chemical Senses. – 1994. – № 19. – Р. 583-594.

47. Rao, C.R. A review of canonical coordinates and an alternative to correspondence analysis using Hellinger distance / C.R. Rao // Qüestiió. – 1995. – № 19. – Р. 23-63.

48. Vidal, L. Comparison of correspondence analysis based on Hellinger and chi-square distances to obtain sensory spaces from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions / L. Vidal, A. Ta´rrega, L. Antu´nez, G. Ares, S.R. Jaeger // Food Quality and Preference. – 2015. – № 43. – Р. 106-112.

49. Lawless, L.J.R. Applying a Mixture Design for Consumer Optimization of Black Cherry, Concord Grape and Pomegranate Juice Blends / L.J.R. Lawless, R.T. Threlfall, J.F. Meullenet, L.R. Howard // Journal of sensory studies. – 2013. – № 28 (2). – Р. 102-112.

50. Narayanan, P. Use of just-about-right scales and penalty analysis to determine appropriate concentrations of stevia sweeteners for vanilla yogurt / P. Narayanan, B. Chinnasamy, L. Jin, S. Clark // Journal of Dairy Science. – 2014. – № 97. – Р. 3262-3272.

51. Ares, G. Penalty analysis based on CATA questions to identify drivers of liking and directions for product reformulation / G. Ares, C. Dauber, E. Ferna´ndez, A. Gime´nez, P. Varela // Food Quality and Preference. – 2014a. – № 32. – Р. 65-76.

52. Ares, G. Hedonic product optimisation: CATA questions as alternatives to JAR scales / G. Ares, J.C. de Andrade, L. Antu´nez, F. Alcaire, M. Swaney-Stueve, S. Gordon, S.R. Jaeger // Food Quality and Preference. – 2017. – № 55. – Р. 67-78.

53. Лазарев, А.А. Статистическое моделирование «идеала» варёной колбасы «Докторская» на основе потребительской оценки / А.А. Лазарев, Т.Г. Кузнецова // Все о мясе. – 2015. – № 4. – С. 38-40.

Lazarev, A.A. Statisticheskoye modelirovaniye «ideala» varonoy kolbasy «Doktorskaya» na osnove potrebitel'skoy otsenki [Statistical modeling of the “ideal” boiled sausage “Doctorskaya” based on consumer assessment] / A.A. Lazarev, T.G. Kuznetsova // Vsyo o myase. – 2015. – № 4. – Р. 38-40.

54. Kuznetsova, T.G. Study on consumer evaluation of cooked sausages / T.G. Kuznetsova, A.A. Lazarev, I.M. Chernukha, I.G. Anisimova. // Tehnologija mesa. – 2014 – № 2 (55). – P. 142-147.

Контакты:

Лазарев Антон Александрович
a.lazarev@fncps.ru
Кузнецова Татьяна Георгиевна
t.kuznecova@fncps.ru

Для цитирования:

Лазарев, А.А. Оперативные методы сенсорного анализа: перспективы использования «всего, что применимо» / А.А. Лазарев, Т.Г. Кузнецова // Все о мясе. – 2022. – № 5. – С. 46-49. DOI: 10.21323/2071-2499-2022-5-46-49.

For citation:

Lazarev, А.А. Operative methods for sensory analysis: prospects of using «all-that-apply» / А.А. Lazarev, T.G. Kuznetsova // Vsyo o myase. – 2022. – № 5. – Р. 46-49. DOI: 10.21323/2071-2499-2022-5-46-49.