WOS: 000306407200001International audienceFor food scientists and industrials, descriptive profiling is an essential tool that involves the evaluation of both the qualitative and quantitative sensory characteristics of a product by a panel. Recently, in response to industrial demands to develop faster and more cost-effective methods of descriptive analysis, several methods have been offered as alternatives to conventional profiling. These methods can be classified in three families: (i) verbal-based methods (flash profile and check-all-that-apply), (ii) similarity-based methods (free sorting task and projective mapping aka Napping (R)) and (iii) reference-based methods (polarised sensory positioning and pivot profile). We successively present these three classes of methods in terms of origin, principles, statistical analysis, applications to food products, variations of the methods and the Pros and Cons

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study examines the effect of beer assessment training on verbal and nonverbal pefonnance. Two groups of subjects are asked to sort, match, and describe a set of 12 beers (6 supplemented and 6 commercial beers). Subjects from the first group are enrolled in a beer-training program. Subjects in the second group are untrained beer consumers. Results show that although both groups peform the matching task equally well, trained subjects performed better on supplemented beers and untrained subjects on commercial beers. Examination of the generated vocabulary shows that 44% of the terms are common to trained and untrained subjects. However, an analysis of the terms' efficiency shows that whereas for trained subjects, precise terms are more efficient than intensity or hedonic terms; the opposite is observed for untrained subjects. This suggests that it is not the term itself that is important but the common reference associated to it.Intensity terms are marked in italic, hedonic in bold italic, learned specific in bold and new specific in plain characters. The stars indicate the percentage of efficiency of the k m : A star indicates a percentage inferior to 25 46, two stars a percentage ranging between 25 96 and 50 96, three stars a percentage ranging between 50% and 75 96, and four stars a percentage superior to 75 S .

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract