1932

Abstract

Sensory science is a multidisciplinary field that encompasses a wide variety of established and newly developed tests to document human responses to stimuli. Sensory tests are not limited to the area of food science but they find wide application within the diverse areas of the food science arena. Sensory tests can be divided into two basic groups: analytical tests and affective tests. Analytical tests are generally product-focused, and affective tests are generally consumer-focused. Selection of the appropriate test is critical for actionable results. This review addresses an overview of sensory tests and best practices.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-060721-023619
2023-03-27
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/food/14/1/annurev-food-060721-023619.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-060721-023619&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Angulo O, O'Mahony M. 2005. The paired preference test and the ‘no preference’ option: Was Odesky correct?. Food Qual. Preference 16:425–34
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antinone MJ, Lawless HT, Ledford RA, Johnston M. 1994. Diacetyl as a flavor component in full fat cottage cheese. J. Food Sci. 59:38–42
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ares G, Bruzzone F, Giménez A. 2011. Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructed intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. J Sens. Stud. 26:363–70
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ASTM 2008. Standard practice for determining odor and taste thresholds by a forced-choice ascending concentration series method of limits, E-679–04. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.0836–42. West Conshoshocken, PA: ASTM Int.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barylko-Pikielna N, Matuszewska I, Jeruszka M, Kozlowska K, Brzozowska A, Roszkowski W. 2004. Discriminability and appropriateness of category scaling versus ranking methods to study sensory preferences in elderly. Food Qual. Preference 15:167–75
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Best RL, Appleton KM. 2013. The consumption of protein-rich foods in older adults: an exploratory focus group study. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 45:751–55
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bittner EP, Ashman H, Hastie M, van Barneveld RJ, Hearn AH et al. 2017. Innovation in an expanding market: Australian pork is not a commodity. Anim. Prod. Sci. 57:2339–44
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolos LA, Lagerkvist CJ, Kulesz MM. 2019. Complementarity of implicit and explicit attitudes in predicting the purchase likelihood of visually sub-optimal or optimal apples. Food Qual. Preference 75:87–96
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boutrolle I, Arranz D, Rogeaux M, Delarue J. 2005. Comparing central location test and home use test results: application of a new criterion. Food Qual. Preference 16:704–13
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brennand CP, Ha JK, Lindsay RC. 1989. Aroma properties and thresholds of some branched chain and other minor volatile fatty acids occurring in milkfat and meat lipids. J. Sens. Stud. 4:105–20
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown JA, Foegeding EA, Daubert CR, Drake MA. 2003. Changes in rheological and sensorial properties of young cheeses as related to maturation. J. Dairy Sci. 86:3054–67
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Calvino A, Garrido D, Garcia M. 2007. Potency of sweetness of aspartame, D tryptophan, and thaumatin evaluated by single value and time intensity measurements. J. Sens. Stud. 15:47–64
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cardello AV, Sawyer FM. 1992. Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on foo acceptability. J. Sens. Stud. 7:253–77
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chalofsky N. 1999. How to Conduct Focus Groups: Business Skills Alexandria, VA: Am. Soc. Train. Dev.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chapman CN, Alford JL, Johnson C, Weidemann R, Lahav M. 2009. CBC versus ACBC: comparing results with real product selection Res. Pap. Ser., Sawtooth Softw. Sequim, WA: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/chapman09.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chung HS, Hong H, Kim K, Cho CW, Moskowitz HR, Lee SY. 2011. Consumer attitudes and expectations of ginseng food products assessed by focus groups and conjoint analysis. J. Sens. Stud. 26:346–57
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chrysochou P. 2014. Drink to get drunk or stay healthy? Exploring consumers’ perceptions, motives and preferences for light beer. Food Qual. Preference 31:156–63
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cliff M, Heymann HH. 1993. Time intensity evaluation of oral burn. J. Sens. Stud. 8:201–11
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Chen Y. 2010. Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: a new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences. Patient 3:257–73
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Darian JC, Tucci L, Newman CM, Naylor L. 2015. An analysis of consumer motivations for purchasing fair trade coffee. Int. Consum. Mark. 27:318–27
    [Google Scholar]
  21. David I. 2007. Using focus group method in consumer behavior research. Cogn. Brain Behav. 11:461–74
    [Google Scholar]
  22. De Graaf C, Cardello A, Kramer M, Lesher L, Meiselman H, Schutz H. 2001. A comparison between acceptance ratings obtained under laboratory and field conditions: the role of choice. Proceedings of the 4th R.M. Pangborn Memorial Symposium: A Sense Odyssey, Dijon, France, July 22–26 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Deliza R, Macfie H. 1996. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: a review. J Sens. Stud. 11:103–28
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Desmet PMA, Schifferstein HNJ. 2008. Sources of positive and negative emotions in food experience. Appetite 50:290–301
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dooley L, Lee YS, Meullenet JF. 2010. The application of check all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Qual. Preference 21:394–401
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Drake MA. 2007. Invited review: sensory analysis of dairy foods. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4925–37
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Drake MA, Civille GV. 2003. Flavor lexicons. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2:33–40
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Drake MA, Drake S, Bodyfelt F, Clark S, Costello M 2008. History of sensory analysis. The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products S Clark, M Costello, M Drake, F Bodyfelt 1–6. New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Drake MA, Mcingvale SC, Gerard PD, Cadwallader KR, Civille GV. 2001. Development of a descriptive language for cheddar cheese. J. Food Sci. 66:1422–27
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Drake SL, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA. 2009. Comparison of two methods to explore consumer reference for cottage cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 92:5883–97
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ennis DM, Anderson JL. 2003. Identifying latent segments. IFPress 6:2–3
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ennis DM, Johnson NL. 1993. Thurstone-Shepard similarity models as special cases of moment generating functions. J. Math. Psychol. 37:104–10
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ennis DM, Palen JJ, Mullen K. 1988. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. J. Math. Psychol. 32:449–65
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ennis JM, Jesionka V. 2011. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. J. Sens. Stud. 26:371–82
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ennis JM, Rouseau B, Ennis D. 2014. Sensory difference tests as measurement instruments: a review of recent advances. J. Sens. Stud. 29:89–102
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Evans JR, Mathur A. 2005. The value of online surveys. Internet Res 15:195–219
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Finn A, Louviere JJ. 1992. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J. Public Policy Mark. 11:19–25
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Foegeding EA, Brown J, Drake MA, Daubert CR. 2003. Sensory and mechanical aspects of cheese texture. Int. Dairy J. 13:585–91
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Foegeding EA, Drake MA. 2007. Sensory and mechanical properties of cheese texture. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1611–24
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Friese M, Wänke M, Plessner H. 2006. Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice. Psychol. Mark. 23:727–40
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Garcia K, Ennis JM, Prinyawiwatkul W. 2012. A large scale experimental comparison of the tetrad and triangle tests in children. J. Sens. Stud. 27:217–22
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gawronski B, Creighton LA. 2013. Dual-process theories. The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition DE Carlston 282–312. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Gensler S, Hinzo O, Skiera B, Theysohn S. 2012. Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219:368–78
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gipson R, Rizzo PV, Hanson D, Drake MA 2020. Sensory characterization of specific wood smoke aromas and their contributions to smoked Cheddar cheese flavor. J. Sens. Stud. 35:3e12564
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y. 2001. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31:56–73
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Green PE, Srinivasan V. 1978. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J. Consum. Res. 5:103–23
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74:61464–80
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR. 2009. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97:117–41
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gutman J. 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. J. Mark. 46:60–72
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Harwood WS, Drake MA. 2018. Identification and characterization of fluid milk consumer groups. J. Dairy Sci. 101:8860–74
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Harwood WS, Drake MA. 2019. Validation of fluid milk consumer segments using qualitative multivariate analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 103:10036–47
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Harwood WS, Drake MA. 2020. The influence of automatic associations on preference for milk type. J. Dairy Sci. 103:11218–27
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Harwood WS, McLean KG, Ennis JM, Ennis DM, Drake MA. 2020. Comparison of preference mapping with projective mapping for characterizing consumer perception of brewed black coffees. J. Sens. Stud. 35:e12563
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hauser JR, Ding M, Gaskin SP. 2009. Non-compensatory (and compensatory) models of consideration-set decisions Res. Pap. Ser., Sawtooth Softw. Sequim, WA:
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hein KA, Jaeger SR, Carr BT, Delahunty CM. 2008. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Qual. Preference 19:651–61
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Ickes CM, Lee SY, Cadwallader KR. 2017. Novel creation of a rum flavor lexicon through the use of web-based materials. J. Food Sci. 82:1216–23
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ishak S, Zainun SI, Shohaimi S, Kandiah M. 2013. Assessing the children's views on foods and consumption of selected food groups: outcome from focus group approach. Nutr. Res. Pract. 7:132–38
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Jaeger SR, Chheang SL, Jin D, Roigard CM, Ares G 2020. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions: Sensory term citation frequency reflects rated term intensity and applicability. Food Qual. Preference 86:103986
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Jaeger SR, Hunter DC, Kam K, Beresford MK, Jin D et al. 2015. The concurrent use of JAR and CATA questions in hedonic scaling is unlikely to cause hedonic bias, but may increase product discrimination. Food Qual. Preference 44:70–74
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Jamieson LF, Bass FM. 1989. Adjusting stated intention measures to predict trial purchase of new products: a comparison of models and methods. J. Mark. Res. 26:336–45
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Jervis MG, Drake MA. 2014. The use of qualitative research methods in quantitative science: a review. J. Sens. Stud. 29:234–47
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Jervis SM, Ennis JM, Drake MA. 2012a. A comparison of adaptive choice-based conjoint and choice-based conjoint to determine key choice attributes of sour cream with limited sample size. J Sens. Stud. 27:451–62
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Jervis SM, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA. 2012b. Application of ethnography and conjoint analysis to determine key consumer attributes for latte-style coffee beverages. J Sens. Stud. 27:48–58
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Jesteadt W. 1980. An adaptive procedure for subjective judgments. Percept. Psychophys. 28:85–88
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S. 1984. Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control 14:39–48
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Keefer HRM, Harwood WS, Castura JC, Drake MA. 2022. Temporal ranking for characterization and improved discrimination of protein beverages. J. Sens. Stud. 37:4e12751
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kraus AA, Piqueras-Fiszman B. 2016. Sandwich or sweets? An assessment of two novel implicit association tasks to capture dynamic motivational tendencies and stable evaluations towards foods. Food Qual. Preference 49:11–19
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Krueger RA, Casey MA. 2009. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kyto E, Virtanen M, Mustonen S. 2019. From intention to action: predicting purchase behavior with consumers’ product expectations and perceptions, and their individual properties. Food Qual. Preference 75:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Lawless HT, Heymann H. 1998. Qualitative consumer methods. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices519–47. New York: Chapman & Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lawless HT, Heymann H. 1999a. Acceptance and preference testing. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices430–79. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lawless HT, Heymann H. 1999b. Scaling. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices208–64. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Lawless HT, Heymann H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices New York: Springer Sci. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Lawless HT, Thomas CJC, Johnston M. 1995. Variation in odor thresholds for l-carvone and cineole and correlations with suprathreshold intensity ratings. Chem. Senses 20:9–17
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Lawless L, Civille GV. 2013. Developing lexicons: a review. J. Sens. Stud. 28:270–81
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Leksrisompong P, Barbano DM, Foegeding EA, Gerard PD, Drake MA. 2010. The roles of fat and pH on the detection thresholds and partition coefficients of three compounds: diacetyl, δ-decalactone, and furaneol. J. Sens. Stud. 25:347–70
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Li XE, Jervis SM, Drake MA. 2015. Examining extrinsic factors that influence product acceptance: a review. J. Food Sci. 80:R901–9
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lindlof TR, Taylor BC. 2002. Qualitative Communication Research Methods Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ. , 2nd ed..
  79. Linschoten MR, Harvey LO, Eller PA, Jafek BW. 2001. Rapid and accurate measurement of taste and smell thresholds using an adaptive maximum-likelihood staircase procedure. Percept. Psychophys. 21:633–34
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lopetcharat K, Beckley J 2012. Qualitative multivariate analysis. Product Innovation Toolbox: A Field Guide to Consumer Understanding and Research JH Beckley, D Paredes, K Lopetcharat 100–21. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Luce RD, Tukey JW. 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1:1–27
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lundahl DS, Lukes BK, McDaniel MR, Henderson LA. 1986. A semi-ascending paired difference method for determining the threshold of added substances to background media. J. Sens. Stud. 1:291–306
    [Google Scholar]
  83. McCarthy KS, Parker M, Ameerally A, Drake SL, Drake MA. 2017. Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plant based alternatives: What are consumer perceptions of fluid milk?. J. Dairy Sci. 100:6125–38
    [Google Scholar]
  84. McEwan JA, Earthy PJ, Ducher C. 1998. Preference Mapping: A Review Chipping Campden, UK: Campden Chorleywood Food Res. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McLean KG, Hanson D, Jervis S, Drake MA. 2017. Consumer perception of retail pork bacon attributes using adaptive choice conjoint analysis and maximum differential scaling. J. Food Sci. 82:2659–68
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Meilgaard MM, Civille GV, Carr BT. 2016. Sensory Evaluation Techniques Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. , 5th ed..
  87. Meiselman HL. 1992. Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite 19:49–55
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Melo L, Childs JL, Drake MA, Bolini A, Maria H, Efraim P. 2010. Expectations and acceptability of diabetic and reduced-calorie milk chocolates among nondiabetics and diabetics in the USA. J. Sens. Stud. 25:133–52
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Meyer KB, Simons J 2021. Good attitudes are not good enough: an ethnographical approach to investigate attitude-behavior inconsistencies in sustainable choice. Foods 10:1317
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Monteleone E, Frewer L, Mela DJ. 1998. Individual differences in starchy food consumption: the application of preference mapping. Food Qual. Preference 9:211–19
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Morais EC, Pinheiro ACM, Nunes CA, Bolini HMA. 2014. Multiple time-intensity analysis and temporal dominance of sensations of chocolate dairy dessert using prebiotic and different high-intensity sweeteners. J. Sens. Stud. 29:339–50
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Morgan DL. 1998. The Focus Group Guidebook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ.
  93. Moskowitz HR, Sidel JL. 1971. Magnitude and hedonic scales of food acceptability. J. Food Sci. 36:677–80
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Munekata PES, Pateiro M, Dominguez R, Sepulveda N, Santos EM, Lorenzo JM 2022. Historical perspective of sensory analysis for the development of meat products: a contemporary challenge. Sensory Analysis for the Development of Meat Products- Methodological Aspects and Practical Applications JM Lorenzo, M Pateiro, E Saldana, PES Munekata 1–27. Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Murray JM, Delahunty CM, Baxter IA. 2001. Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and future. Food Res. Int. 34:461–71
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Nestrud MA, Lawless HT. 2010. Perceptual mapping of apples and cheeses using projective mapping and sorting. J. Sens. Stud. 25:390–405
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Oltman AE, Jervis SM, Drake MA. 2014. Consumer attitudes and preferences for fresh market tomatoes. J. Food Sci. 79:S2091–97
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Oltman AE, Lopetcharat K, Bastian E, Drake MA. 2015. Identifying key attributes for protein beverages. J. Food Sci. 80:6S1383–90
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Orme B. 2009. MaxDiff analysis: simple counting, individual-level logit, and HB. Res. Pap. Ser., Sawtooth Softw. Sequim, WA: https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/technical-papers/maxdiff-analysis-simple-counting-individual-level-logit-and-hb
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Orme BK. 2010. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Madison, WI: Research Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Pagès J. 2003. 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 Qual. Preference 16:642–49
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Pagès J, Cadoret M, S. 2010. The sorted napping: a new holistic approach in sensory evaluation. J. Sens. Stud. 25:637–58
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Palazzo AB, Bolini HMA. 2013. Multiple time intensity analysis sweetness bitterness and chocolate flavor and melting rate of chocolate with sucralose, rebaudioside and neotame. J. Sens. Stud. 29:21–32
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Parpinello GP, Versari A, Chinnici F, Galassi S. 2009. Relationship among sensory descriptors, consumer preference and color parameters of Italian Novello red wines. Food Res. Int. 42:1389–95
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Parvin S, Wang P, Uddin J. 2016. Using best-worst scaling method to examine consumers’ value preferences: a multidimensional perspective. Cogent Bus. Manag. 3:1199110
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maitre I, Asselin C, Jourjon F, Pages J. 2008. Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: case of ten wines from Loire valley. Food Qual. Preference 18:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Peryman DR, Pilgrim FJ. 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol 11:9–14
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Piqueras-Fiszman B, Jaeger SR. 2014. The impact of evoked consumption contexts and appropriateness on emotion responses. Food Qual. Preference 32:277–88
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Piqueras-Fiszman B, Spence C. 2015. Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: an interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Qual. Preference 40:165–79
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Popper R, Rosenstock W, Schaidt M, Kroll BJ. 2004. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking. Food Qual Preference 15:853–58
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Rao VR. 2010. Conjoint analysis. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing New York: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Resano H, Sanjuán AI, Cilla I, Roncalés P, Albisu LM. 2010. Sensory attributes that drive consumer acceptability of dry-cured ham and convergence with trained sensory data. Meat Sci. 84:344–51
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Reyes MM, Castura JC, Hayes JE. 2017. Characterizing dynamic sensory properties of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners with temporal check all that apply. J. Sens. Stud. 32:3e12270
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Richins ML. 1997. Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. J. Consum. Res. 24:127–46
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Risvik E, McEwan JA, Colwill JS, Rogers R, Lyon DH 1994. Projective mapping: a tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Qual. Preference 5:263–69
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Rizzo PV, Harwood WS, Drake MA. 2020. Consumer desires and perceptions of lactose free milk. J. Dairy Sci. 103:6950–66
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Rothman L 2007. The use of just-about-right (JAR) scales in food product development and reformulation. Consumer-Led Food Product Development H MacFie 407–33. Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Rothman L, Parker M. 2009. Just-About-Right JAR Scales: Design, Usage, Benefits and Risks West Conshoshocken, PA: ASTM Int.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Rousseau B, Ennis DM, Rossi F. 2012. Internal preference mapping and the issue of satiety. Food Qual. Preference 24:67–74
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Schiano AN, Drake MA. 2021. Consumer understanding of fluid milk and cheese processing and composition. J. Dairy Sci. 104:8644–60
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Schiano AN, Gerard PD, Drake MA. 2021. Consumer perception of dried dairy ingredients: healthy, natural and sustainable?. J. Dairy Sci. 104:12427–42
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Schiano AN, Harwood WS, Drake MA. 2017. A 100-year review: sensory analysis of milk. J. Dairy Sci. 100:9966–86
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Schonlau M, Fricker RD Jr., Elliott MN. 2001. Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web Rep., Rand Corp. Santa Monica, CA: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1480.html
  124. Shi M, Stelick A, Licker S, Dando R. 2021. On the validity of longitudinal comparisons of central location consumer testing results prior to COVID-19 versus home use testing data during the pandemic. J. Food Sci. 86:4668–77
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Song J, Xia Y, Zhong F. 2021. Consumer with high frequency of ‘just about right’ in JAR scales may use lower cognitive effort: evidence from the concurrent 9-point hedonic scale and CATA questions. Food Res. Int. 143:110285
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Songa G, Russo V. 2018. IAT, consumer behaviour and the moderating role of decision-making style: an empirical study on food products. Food Qual. Preference 64:205–20
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Speight KC, Schiano AN, Harwood WS, Drake MA. 2019. Consumer insights on prepackaged Cheddar cheese shreds using focus groups, conjoint analysis, and qualitative multivariate analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 102:6971–86
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Stelick A, Dando R. 2018. Thinking outside the booth—the eating environment, context and ecological validity in sensory and consumer research. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 21:26–31
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Stewart B, Olson D, Goody C, Tinsley A, Amos R et al. 1994. Converting focus group data on food choices into a quantitative instrument. J Nutr. Educ. 26:34–36
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Tempesta T, Giancristofaro RA, Corain L, Salmaso L, Tomasi D, Boatto V. 2010. The importance of landscape in wine quality perception: an integrated approach using choice-based conjoint analysis and combination-based permutation tests. Food Qual. Preference 21:827–36
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Then KL, Rankin JA, Ali E 2014. Focus group research: What is it and how can it be used?. Can. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 24:16–22
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Thompson JL, Lopetcharat K, Yates MD, Drake MA. 2004. Preference mapping of commercial chocolate milks. J. Food Sci. 69:S406–13
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Toubia O, Hauser JR, Simester DI. 2004. Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Mark. Res. 41:116–31
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Ulvila KM, Paloviita A, Puupponen A. 2009. Consumers’ perceptions of sustainably produced food: a focus group study. Prog. Ind. Ecol. 6:355–70
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Van Doorn G, Timora J, Watson S, Moore C, Spence C 2019. The visual appearance of beer: a review concerning visually determined expectations and their consequences for perception. Food Res. Int. 126:108661
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Vazquez Araujo L, Parker D, Woods E 2013. Comparison of temporal sensory methods for beer flavor evaluation. J. Sens. Stud. 28:387–95
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Villanueva NDM, Petenate AJ, Da Silva MAAP 2005. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Qual. Preference 16:691–703
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Worch T. 2012. The ideal profile analysis: from the validation to the statistical analysis of ideal profile data PhD Thesis Univ. Eur. De Bretagne Brest, Fr:.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Wright JM, Carunchia Whetstine ME, Miracle RE, Drake MA 2006. Characterization of a cabbage off-flavor in whey protein isolate. J. Food Sci. 71:C91–96
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Wu AZ, Lee RW, Calve B, Cayeux I. 2019. Temporal profiling of simplified lemonade using temporal dominance of sensations and temporal check all that apply. J. Sens. Stud. 34:6e12531
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Yackinous C, Wee C, Guinard JX. 1999. Internal preference mapping of hedonic ratings for ranch salad dressings varying in fat and garlic flavor. Food Qual. Preference 10:401–9
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Yeh E, Schiano AN, Jo Y, Barbano DM, Drake MA. 2017. The effect of vitamin concentrates on the flavor of pasteurized milk. J. Dairy Sci. 100:4335–48
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Yu J, Goos P, Vanderbroeck M. 2011. Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity. Int. J. Res. Mark. 28:378–88
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Zepeda L, Chang HS, Leviten-Reid C. 2006. Organic food demand: a focus group study involving Caucasian and African-American shoppers. Agric. Hum. Values 23:385–94
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Zhang MT, Jo Y, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA. 2020. Comparison of a central location test versus a home usage test for consumer perception of ready-to-mix protein beverages. J. Dairy Sci. 103:3107–24
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-060721-023619
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-060721-023619
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error