Projective mapping and ultra‐flash profile studies should include a list of descriptors and definitions: An investigation into descriptors used by untrained panelists

Abstract

Projective mapping (PM) and ultra-flash profile (UFP) have been used to evaluate various products, including wine. However, the meaning or definition of the descriptor participants use during a UFP task can be unknown. This study's objective was to have participants (n = 81) evaluate white wine (seven different wines and one duplicate sample) using PM and UFP. After completing the task, the 10 most commonly used descriptors were included in a survey, and the participants were asked to definethe descriptors using open-ended questions. The survey was sent to all participants, but only 62 participants completed it. The results of the survey indicated the participants used different definitions to define the descriptors. In future research using PM and UFP, sensory researchers could provide a list of descriptors and their definitions for the participants, especially when they are untrained, or ask the participants to concentrate on only one sensory modality (appearance, taste, aroma, mouthfeel). Practical ApplicationsProjective mapping and ultra-flash profile trials can generate much information about a large number of products rapidly. However, these methods also have some limitations, including understanding the definition of the descriptors provided by the participants during the ultra-flash profile task. This study hoped to overcome this limitation by asking the participants to complete a follow-up survey to define the most frequently used descriptors from the ultra-flash profile task. Unfortunately, the participants supplied contrasting definitions for the attributes. Future studies may want to supply the participants with a list of descriptors and definitions to lead to more consensus in the results.

Using check‐all‐that‐apply to evaluate wine and food pairings: An investigation with white wines

“…Sour is another attribute that was also found to negatively impact consumers' liking of wine in past studies (Francis & Williamson, 2015; Lattey et al, 2010). When consumers were asked to define the sour attribute when evaluating white wine in a past study on NS wine (Moss, Healey, Hayward, & McSweeney, 2021), they identified that sour means the “wine has gone bad.” Overall, the results of the participants ( n = 112) were consistent with past studies evaluating the consumer perception of wine. The next part of the study asked consumers to choose which food items they would pair with each wine.…”

“…(Francis & Williamson, 2015;Lattey et al, 2010). When consumers were asked to define the sour attribute when evaluating white wine in a past study on NS wine (Moss, Healey, Hayward, & McSweeney, 2021), they identified that sour means the "wine has gone bad." Overall, the results of the participants (n = 112) were consistent with past studies evaluating the consumer perception of wine.…”

Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products

“…This leads to a large number of words being used, and the words that are used by the participants to describe the samples need to be interpreted by the researchers (Lezaeta et al, 2017). A recent study found that consumers have differing definitions of the sensory properties they identified in a UFP task (Moss, Healey, Hayward, & McSweeney, 2021). Some studies have tried to overcome this limitation by including a word bank for the UFP task (Smith & McSweeney, 2019).…”

Mouthfeel subqualities in wines: A current insight on sensory descriptors and physical–chemical markers

“…The term Strong (4.3%) was identified with alcoholic, robust, intense in taste, and concentrated white wines’ evaluation. As an example, dry , smooth , and strong attributes were present among the 10 most cited terms used to describe white wines produced in Nova Scotia by untrained participants in an on‐line survey (Moss et al., 2021). In this study, dry was the term mentioned with the highest frequency, but some of the assessors used it to describe a still wine, with a low amount of sugar, while others adopted it with the meaning of dry mouth perception.…”

“…The first description was related to the lack of flavor in white wines and the stated watery descriptor was associated with bland or lacking wine. In the second definition, only some participants defined watery as a lack of body or a low viscous wine (Moss et al., 2021). Similarly, in another consumer study combining projective mapping (PM) and ultra‐flash‐profiling (UFP), watery , together with light and pungent , have been adopted in the red/white/rosé wine description (Hayward et al., 2020).…”