Free-comment outperformed check-all-that-apply in the sensory characterisation of wines with consumers at home

Mahieu, Benjamin; Visalli, Michel; Thomas, Arnaud; Schlich, Pascal

doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103937

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consumers noticed package cues during repeated consumption [14]. Mahieu et al [15] researched if the participants got the sensory description from wine labels. Conversely, using a container labeled with a three-digit code enabled not providing the original package of the sample to consumers [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, most studies just stated the delivery status as 'delivered' or 'sent', hence, handling of the samples was unclear. Participants in previous studies were asked to record their answers on a score sheet [16], however, currently, online questionnaires are being implemented [14,15,17]. In addition, photographs of the participants [10], videos with observations [18], or interviews [19] are also taken for evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Home Use Tests with Differing Time and Order Controls

Lee

2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumer tests are classified in terms of the location of testing as laboratory tests or central location tests (CLTs) and home use tests (HUTs). CLT is generally used in sensory tests due to the ease of test control, whereas HUT has higher validity because of real consumption. However, the lack of test control in HUT is a major issue. In order to investigate the error occurrence and efforts required to minimize errors, three groups of tests were designed differing time and order control and evaluation was conducted using six snacks with texture differences. Errors related to time, order, and consumer or sample number were higher for more controlled conditions, however, most errors were recoverable using identification information except for cases of no response. Additionally, consumers preferred to consume all snacks in the evening at home, which differed from the typical 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. evaluation time in CLT. However, the timing differed for consumers with self-reported snacking time. The research title that included the term ‘home’ might have influenced the participants’ choice of location for evaluation. Overall, there was no significant difference between the results of groups despite different time and order controls, which could increase the applicability of HUT.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Home Use Tests with Differing Time and Order Controls

Lee

2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mahieu, Visalli, Thomas, and Schlich (2020) used a home‐use test to evaluate four French wines. They suggested by using a home‐use test and forcing the time between evaluations to be at least 24 hr; it overcomes issues that are inherent in central location tests, including consuming products within the same product category within a short period of time, and inorganic conditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They suggested by using a home‐use test and forcing the time between evaluations to be at least 24 hr; it overcomes issues that are inherent in central location tests, including consuming products within the same product category within a short period of time, and inorganic conditions. Furthermore, they found that participants, on average, allowed 72 hr between evaluations and this would be beneficial if more than one edible were being evaluated (Mahieu et al, 2020). Mahieu et al (2020) used free comments and a CATA questionnaire to evaluate the wines in their home use study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, they found that participants, on average, allowed 72 hr between evaluations and this would be beneficial if more than one edible were being evaluated (Mahieu et al, 2020). Mahieu et al (2020) used free comments and a CATA questionnaire to evaluate the wines in their home use study. Churchill, Meyners, Griffiths, and Bailey (2009) used a home‐use test to evaluate the fragrance in shampoo and asked their participants to evaluate the shampoo using open comments and provided each participant with a diary.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A preliminary investigation into participants' reactions to a sensory trial investigating a cannabis edible

Faraone

Hillier

McSweeney

2020

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the food industry to successfully develop foods and beverages enriched with cannabis or cannabinoids, sensory analysis trials must be conducted. This study used open‐ended comments to evaluate a consumer acceptability trial of a cannabis edible. The participants (n = 64) were presented with an outline of a proposed consumer acceptability trial evaluating a cannabis edible and then answered questions about the sensory trial. Results suggest that conventional methodology used in sensory analyses may need to be reframed when evaluating edible cannabis products. The use of take‐home sample kits needs to be considered, and consumer acceptability trials may want to include questions about the psychoactive effects induced after consumption. As more edible cannabis products are developed, they present a unique opportunity for researchers to explore other levels of sensory characterization of these novel food products. Practical applications Sensory analysis is a key component of the food product development process, and as such, it is essential to determine how sensory methods can be best utilized to evaluate edible cannabis products. This study investigated what participants thought about a proposed consumer acceptability trial being applied to an edible cannabis product. The participants identified that (a) they wished to evaluate the full product (not a sample), (b) thought they should have been asked about the psychoactive effects, (c) wished to try the product at home and lastly, (d) did not enjoy testing the products within sensory booths. As such, researchers within the food industry working on edible cannabis products should investigate the employment of home‐use tests and questions about psychoactive effects. More studies are needed to identify which sensory methods can be best applied to evaluate edible cannabis products.

show abstract

Schnelles Beschreiben

Derndorfer¹,

Buchinger²

2020

Essentials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free-comment outperformed check-all-that-apply in the sensory characterisation of wines with consumers at home

Cited by 26 publications

References 29 publications

Comparison of Home Use Tests with Differing Time and Order Controls

Comparison of Home Use Tests with Differing Time and Order Controls

A preliminary investigation into participants' reactions to a sensory trial investigating a cannabis edible

Schnelles Beschreiben

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About