Bredie, Wender lP

De Bourdeaudhuij, Ilse

De Steur, Hans

Gellynck, Xavier

Lagast, Sofie

Perez-Cueto, Federico JA

Schouteten, Joachim

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Materials & methods PRODUCTS: • Separate experiments were set up with two product categories: chocolate and yogurt • 3 samples for each product category  Methods:  EmoSensory® Wheel                List-based format        CONSUMER TEST (i) Comparison question formats (chocolate: n=50; yogurt n=50) • Within-subjects design • 3 Sessions: • 1st: introduction (training) • 2nd: evaluation with first method • 3th: evaluation with other method => Half of the participants first used the wheel format, other half list-based format  (ii) Comparison scaling formats (chocolate: n=117; yogurt n=105) • Between-subjects design • Evaluation of one product category • Single session with one scaling format  (iii) Cross-cultural application    (chocolate: n=117) • Between-subjects design • Evaluation of chocolate during single session  • Software: EyeQuestion v3.15.10 (Logic 8BV, Netherlands)  • Location: sensory lab at campus  STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS • IBM® SPSS 22 (USA)   *Joachim.Schouteten@UGent.be;  J.J. Schouteten received a grant from FWO (Research Foundation – Flanders, FWO V470215N) for carrying out part of the research at the Section for Food Design and Consumer Behaviour, University of Copenhagen (Denmark).    Validating the EmoSensory® Wheel: comparison with traditional questionnaire format, between scaling formats and between countries      Joachim J. Schouteten1*, Hans De Steur1, Sofie Lagast1, Xavier Gellynck1, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij2, Wender L.P. Bredie3, Federico J.A. Perez-Cueto3   1Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Gent, Belgium 2Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, Gent 9000, Belgium 3Department of Food Science, Section for Food Design and Consumer Behaviour, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark                                                                Objectives The study of emotional and sensory profiling with food products gain momentum to obtain a broader consumers’ perspective on product performance beyond traditional hedonic measures. Recently, the EmoSensory® Wheel has been introduced as a new method which combines emotional and sensory assessments by consumers. However, questions arise about the methodological applicability of this method.  Therefore, a series of experiments were conducted to further examine the use of this method:  (i) comparison with the use of a traditional list-based questionnaire format;  (ii) comparing the use of Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) and Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA) scaling format;  (iii) examining its applicability in a cross-cultural setting by application in two different countries (Denmark and Belgium).   Results (i) Comparison questions formats                                                       (ii) Comparison scaling formats                  (iii) Cross-cultural application     EuroSense 2016, 7th European Conference on Sensory and Consumer research, 11 – 14 September 2016, Dijon (France)    Conclusions  Both questionnaire formats gathered similar findings, but two-third of the consumers preferred the wheel questionnaire format  CATA and RATA scaling yielded similar performance  Differences in the profiles were detected between the different countries, illustrating the potential for a cross-cultural comparison  The EmoSensory® Wheel is a method which can be of use for collecting both emotional and sensory data for profiling with consumers. The insights of these studies lend further support for its application in order to combine emotional and sensory measurements. This is of interest for food scientists and industry for instance in the scope of the SensoEmotional optimization of food products.    Chocolate Yogurt   List-based  EmoSensory® Wheel List-based EmoSensory®  Wheel Mean hedonic liking (SD) C1: 6.0a(1.8) C2: 6.6a(1.6) C3: 4.0b(1.5) C1: 5.7a(1.9) C2: 6.4a(1.7) C3: 4.0b(1.9) Y1: 5.5(1.9) Y2: 5.7(1.9) Y3: 5.3(1.6) Y1: 5.4(2.1) Y2: 5.6(1.9) Y3: 5.2(1.9) Term usage Average percentage of emotional terms used to describe samples   19% 17% 16% 15% Average percentage of sensory terms used to describe samples 41% 42% 38% 39% Sample differences Number of emotional terms with significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05)   RATA: 13 RATA-S: 14 RATA: 14 RATA-S: 13 RATA:1 RATA-S: 2 RATA: 2 RATA-S: 2 Number of sensory terms with significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05) RATA: 6 RATA-S: 9 RATA: 6 RATA-S: 11 RATA: 6 RATA-S: 6 RATA: 7 RATA-S: 6 Sample configurations RV between sample configurations obtained from CA of emotional data from list-based and wheel format    RATA: 0.99*** RATA-S: 0.99** RATA: 0.99*** RATA-S: 0.99*** RV between term configurations obtained from CA of emotional data from list-based and wheel  format    RATA: 0.71*** RATA-S : 0.91*** RATA: 0.76*** RATA-S 0.55*** RV between sample configurations obtained from CA of sensory data from list-based and wheel format    RATA: 1.00*** RATA-S: 1.00*** RATA: 0.94 RATA-S: 1.00*** RV between term configurations obtained from CA of sensory data from list-based and wheel format  RATA: 0.87** RATA-S: 0.87** RATA: 0.82** RATA-S: 0.97** CA = Correspondence analysis; RATA: data were analysed by only taking the frequency of selection into account; RATA-S: data were analysed by creating a summed index of the scores provided by all participants for each of the terms of the question; Samples with different superscript letter in the hedonic liking scores differ significantly within a questionnaire format (p<0.05); RV score significance level: **, p<0.01; ***, p<0.001.    Chocolate Yogurt   CATA (n = 58) RATA (n = 59) CATA (n = 51) RATA (n = 54) Hedonic liking         Mean (S.D.) C1: 7.2a(1.0) C2: 6.7a(1.6) C3: 5.0b(1.6) C1: 6.7a(1.6) C2: 6.7a(1.4) C3: 5.2b(1.9) Y1: 5.2(1.9) Y2: 5.4(1.9) Y3: 5.8(1.5) Y1: 5.6(1.5) Y2: 5.7(1.7) Y3: 6.0(1.6) Term usage Average percentage of emotional terms used to describe samples 14%a 19%b 15% 15% Average percentage of sensory terms used to describe samples 30%a 36%b 25%a 37%b Sample differences Number of emotional terms with significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05) 12 RATA: 12 RATA-S: 11 0 RATA: 2 RATA-S: 0 Number of sensory terms with significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05) 7 RATA: 6 RATA-S: 6 7 RATA: 8 RATA-S: 8 Sample configurations RV between sample configurations obtained from CA of emotion data from CATA and RATA questions RATA: 1.00*** RATA-S: 1.00*** RATA: 1.00*** RATA-S: 0.99*** RV between term configurations obtained from CA of emotion data from CATA and RATA questions RATA: 0.68*** RATA-S: 0.71*** RATA: 0.83*** RATA-S: 0.79*** RV between sample configurations obtained from CA of sensory data from CATA and RATA questions  RATA: 0.97*** RATA-S: 0.98*** RATA: 0.98*** RATA-S: 1.00*** RV between term configurations obtained from CA of sensory data from CATA and RATA questions RATA: 0.65* RATA-S: 0.57* RATA: 0.94*** RATA-S: 0.94*** CA = Correspondence analysis; RATA: data were analysed by only taking the frequency of selection into account; RATA-S: data were analysed by creating a summed index of the scores provided by all participants for each of the terms of the question; Samples with different superscript letter in the hedonic liking scores differ significantly within a questionnaire format (p<0.05); RV score significance level: *, p<0.05; ***, p<0.001.  Unpleasant surprise Irritated Dissatisfied Disapointed Pleasant Happy Good Glad Enthusiastic Guilty Satisfied Desire Energetic Nostalgic Calm Discontented Disgust Worried Sad DISAPPOINTED GOOD SATISFIED CALM GLAD GUILTY HAPPY PLEASANT DISSATISFIED DESIRE IRRITATED UNPLEASANT SURPRISE DISGUST NOSTALGIC DISCONTENTED SAD ENERGETIC WORRIED ENTHUSIASTIC -1-0,75-0,5-0,2500,250,50,751-1 -0,75 -0,5 -0,25 0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1Dim2 (19.39 %) Dim1 (80.61 %) Emotional profile BelgiumDENMARKSample 1.Belgium   Sample 1.DENMARK Sample 2.Belgium   Sample 2.DENMARK Sample 3.Belgium   Sample 3.DENMARK -1,5-1-0,500,511,52-2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5Dim2 (19.39 %) Dim1 (80.61 %) Coordinates of the Samples Granular Mouth coating Sweet Brown colour Melting Chocolateflavour Smooth Aftertaste Creamy Firm Milky flavour Bitter Chocolate aroma Sticky CHOCOLATE FLAVOUR MELTING MOUTH COATING SMOOTH SWEET AFTERTASTE CHOCOLATE AROMA CREAMY MILK FLAVOUR BROWN FIRM BITTER STICKY GRANULAR -1-0,75-0,5-0,2500,250,50,751-1 -0,75 -0,5 -0,25 0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1Dim2 (39,48 %) Dim1 (60.52 %) Sensory profile BelgiumDENMARKSample 1.Belgium   Sample 1.DENMARK Sample 2.Belgium   Sample 2.DENMARK Sample 3.Belgium   Sample 3.DENMARK -2-1,5-1-0,500,511,52-2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3Dim2 (39.48 %) Dim1 (60.52 %) Coordinates of the samples 

Validating the EmoSensory® Wheel: comparison with traditional questionnaire format, between scaling formats and between countries

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8076215/file/8076269

Validating the EmoSensory® Wheel: comparison with traditional questionnaire format, between scaling formats and between countries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography