Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Descriptive Analysis

  • Chapter
Sensory Evaluation of Food

Part of the book series: Food Science Text Series ((FSTS))

Abstract

This chapter describes the potential uses for descriptive analysis in sensory evaluation. We then discuss the use of language and concept formation as well as the requirements for appropriate sensory attribute terms. This is followed by a historical review of the first descriptive analysis technique, the Flavor Profile. We then describe the Texture Profile, as well as proprietary descriptive methods such as Quantitative Descriptive Analysis and the Spectrum method. We then lead the reader through a step-by-step application of consensus and ballot-trained generic descriptive analyses. We then highlight and discuss some of the studies comparing conventional descriptive analysis technique. This is followed by an in-depth discussion of the variations on the theme of descriptive analysis such as free choice profiling and flash profiling.

I want to reach that state of condensation of sensations which constitutes a picture.

—Henri Matisse

An erratum to this chapter can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6488-5_20.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, N. H. 1970. Functional measurement and psychological judgment. Psychological Review, 77, 153–170.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aparicio, J. P., Medina, M. Á. T. and Rosales, V. L. 2007. Descriptive sensory analysis in different classes of orange juice by a robust free-choice profile method. Analytica Chimica Acta, 595, 238–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, G., McIlveen, H., McDowell, D. and Blair, I. 1997. Sensory analysis and assessor motivation: Can computers make a difference? Food Quality and Preference, 8, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, G. and Williams, A. A. 1986. The use of generalized procrustes technique in sensory analysis. In: J. R. Piggott (ed.), Statistical Procedures in Food Research. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK, pp. 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • AWWA (American Water Works Association) Manual, 1993. Flavor Profile Analysis: Screening and Training of Panelists. AWWA, Denver, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M. and Roessler, E. R. 1965. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Foods. Academic, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcenas, P., Pé©rez Elortondo, Albisu, M., Mége, K., Bivar Roseiro, L., Scintu, M. F., Torre, P., Loygorri, S. and Lavanchy, P. 2007. An international ring trial for the sensory evaluation of raw ewes’ milk cheese texture. International Dairy Journal, 17, 1139–1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, J. H. M., Burlingame, G. A. and Suffett, I. H. 1986. Flavor profile analysis: Taste and odor control of the future. American Water Works Association Journal, 78, 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, J. H. M., Brady, B. M. and Suffet, I. H. 1987. Training panelists for the flavor profile analysis method. American Water Works Association Journal, 79, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blancher, G., Chollet, S., Kesteloot, R., Nguyen Hoang, D., Cuvelier, G. and Sieffermann, J.-M. 2007. French and Vietnamese: How do they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 560–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boylston, T. D., Reitmeier, C. A., Moy, J. H., Mosher, G. A. and Taladriz, L. 2002. Sensory quality and nutrient composition of three Hawaiian fruits treated by X-irradiation. Journal of Food Quality, 25, 419–433.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, M. A., Skinner E. Z. and Coleman J. A. 1963. The texture profile method. Journal of Food Science, 28, 404–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairncross, S. E. and Sjöstrom, L. B. 1950. Flavor profiles: A new approach to flavor problems. Food Technology, 4, 308–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campo, E., Do. B. V., Ferreira, V. and Valentin, D. 2008. Aroma properties of young Spanish white wines: A study using sorting task, list of terms and frequency of citation. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 14, 104–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campo, E., Ballester, J., Langlois, J., Dacremont, C. and Valentin, D. 2009. Comparison of conventional analysis and a citation frequency based descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines. Food Quality and Preference, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009. 08.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, L., Izquierdo, L. and Carbonell, I. 2007. Sensory analysis of Spanish mandarin juices. Selection of attributes and panel performance. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caul, J. F. 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Advances in Food Research, 7, 1–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caul, J. F. 1967. The profile method of flavor analysis. Advances in Food Research, 7, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, E. IV, Bowers, J. R. and Smith, E. A. 1992. Flavor of cooked, ground turkey patties with added sodium tripolyphosphate as perceived by sensory panels with differing phosphate sensitivity. Journal of Food Science, 57, 521–523.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Civille, G. V. and Lyon, B. 1996. ASTM Lexicon Vocabulary for Descriptive Analysis. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Civille, G. V. and Liska, I. H. 1975. Modifications and applications to foods of the general foods sensory texture profile technique. Journal of Texture Studies, 6, 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Civille, G. V. and Lawless, H. T. 1986. The importance of language in describing perceptions. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 217–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, M. A., Wall, K., Edwards, B. J. and King, M. C. 2000. Development of a vocabulary for profiling apple juices. Journal of Food Quality, 23, 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. G. and Cox, G. M. 1957. Experimental Designs. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cristovam, E., Paterson, A. and Piggott, J. R. 2000. Differentiation of port wines by appearance using a sensory panel: Comparing free choice and conventional profiling. European Food Research and Technology, 211, 65–71

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dairou, V. and Sieffermann, J.-M. 2002. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, flash profile. Journal of Food Science, 67, 826–834.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Delarue, J. and Sieffermann, J-M. 2000. Use of Flash Profile for a quick sensory characterization of a set of sixteen strawberry yogurts. In: K. C. Persaud and S. van Toller (eds.), 13th International Symposium of Olfaction and Taste/14th European Chemoreception Research Organization Congress. ECRO, Brighton, UK, pp. 225–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellaglio, S., Casiraghi, E. and Pompei, C. 1996. Chemical, physical and sensory attributes for the characterization of an Italian dry-cured sausage. Meat Science, 42, 25–35.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeRovira, D. 1996. The dynamic flavor profile method. Food Technology, 50, 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derndorfer, E., Baierl, A., Nimmervoll, E. and Sinkovits, E. 2005. A panel performance procedure implemented in R. Journal of Sensory Studies, 20, 217–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, G. 1995. Assessing panel consensus. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, L. M., Adhikari, K. and Chambers, E. 2009. A general lexicon for sensory analysis of texture and appearance of lip products. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24, 581–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, M. A. and Civille, G. V. 2003. Flavor lexicons. Comprehensive Reviews of Food Science and Food Safety, 1, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, M. A., Yates, M. D., Gerard, P. D., Delahunty, C. M., Sheehan, E. M., Turnbull, R. P. and Dodds, T. M. 2005. Comparison of differences between lexicons for descriptive analysis of Cheddar cheese flavor in Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States of America. International Dairy Journal, 15, 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, M. A., Jones, V. S., Russell, T., Harding, R. and Gerard, P. D. 2007. Comparison of lexicons for descriptive analysis of whey and soy proteins in New Zealand and the U.S.A. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, 433–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, M. A. 1991. Descriptive techniques and their hybridization. In: H. T. Lawless and B. P. Klein (eds.), Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, J. and Heymann, H. 1999. Perceptual maps of photographs of carbonated beverages created by traditional and free-choice profiling Food Quality and Preference, 10, 219–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Findlay, C. J., Castura, J. C., Schlich, P. and Lesschaeve, I. 2006. Use of feedback calibration to reduce the training time for wine panels. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 266–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Findlay, C. J., Castura, J. C. and Lesschaeve, I. 2007. Feedback calibration: A training method for descriptive panels. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 321–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frøst. M. B. and Janhøj, T. 2007. Understanding creaminess. International Dairy Journal, 17, 1298–1311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gains, N. 1994. The repertory grid approach. In: H. J. H. MacFie and D. M. H. Thomson (eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, pp. 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giboreau, A., Dacremont, C., Egoroff, C., Guerrand, S., Urdapilleta, I., Candol, D. and Dubois, D. 2007. Defining sensory descriptors: Towards writing guidelines based on terminology. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert J. M. and Heymann, H. 1995. Comparison of four sensory methodologies as alternatives to descriptive analysis for the evaluation of apple essence aroma. The Food Technologist (NZIFST), 24, 4, 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordin, H. H. 1987. Intensity variation descriptive methodology: Development and application of a new sensory evaluation technique. Journal of Sensory Studies 2, 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gou, P., Guerrero, L. and Romero, A. 1998. The effect of panel selection and training on external preference mapping using a low number of samples. Food Science and Technology International, 4, 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gower, J. C. 1975. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gower, J. C. and Dijksterhuis, G. B. 2004. Procrustes Problems. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenacre, M. 2007. Correspondence Analysis in Practice, Second Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. L. 1958. Flavor study approaches at McCormick and Company, Inc., In: A. D. Little, Inc. (ed.), Flavor Research and Food Acceptance. Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, J. E., Kendall, D. A. and Smith, N. F. 1983. The missing link: Correlation of consumer and professional sensory descriptions. Beverage World, 102, 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegenbart, S. 1994. Learning and speaking the language of flavor. Food Product Design, 8, 33, 34, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, K. A. 2005. Perception of Vegetative and Fruity Aromas in Red Wine and Evaluation of a Descriptive Analysis Panel Using Across Product Versus Across Attribute Serving. MS Thesis, University of California, Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisserer, D. M. and Chambers, E., IV. 1993. Determination of sensory flavor attributes of aged natural cheese. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heymann, H. 1994a. A comparison of descriptive analysis of vanilla by two independently trained panels. Journal of Sensory Studies, 9, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heymann, H. 1994b. A comparison of free choice profiling and multidimensional scaling of vanilla samples. Journal of Sensory Studies, 9, 445–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heymann, H., Holt, D. L. and Cliff, M. A. 1993. Measurement of flavor by sensory descriptive techniques. In: C.-T. Ho and C. H. Manley (eds.), Flavor Measurement. Proceedings of the Institute of Food Technologists Basic Symposium, New Orleans, LA, Chapter 6, pp. 113–131, June 19–20, 1993.

  • Heymann, H. and Noble, A. C. 1987. Descriptive analysis of commercial Cabernet sauvignon wines in California. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 38, 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, D. and Næs, T. 1994. A graphical technique for assessing differences among a set of rankings. Journal of Chemometrics, 8, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homa, D. and Cultice, J. 1984. Role of feedback, category size, and stimulus distortion on the acquisition and utilization of ill-defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishii, R. and O’Mahony, M. 1991. Use of multiple standards to define sensory characteristics for descriptive analysis: Aspects of concept formation. Journal of Food Science, 56, 838–842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaros, D., Thamke, I., Raddatz, H. and Rohm, H. 2009. Single-cultivar cloudy juice from table apples: An attempt to identify the driving force for sensory preference. European Food Research and Technology, 229, 51–61.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek, G. 1964. Introduction to and critical review of modern methods of sensory analysis (odor, taste and flavor evaluation) with special emphasis on descriptive analysis (flavor profile method). Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics 1, 219–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. N., MacFie, H. J. H. and Beilken, S. L. 1989. Use of preference mapping to relate consumer preference to the sensory properties of a processed meat product tinned cat food. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 47, 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkmeyer, S. V. and Tepper, B. 2003. Understanding creaminess perception of dairy products using free-choice profiling and genetic responsivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Chemical Senses, 28, 527–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollár-Hunek, K., Heszberger, J., Kókai, Z., Láng-Lázi, M. and Papp, E. 2007. Testing panel consistency with GCAP method in food profile analysis. Journal of Chemometrics, 22, 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. W. 1995. The use of reference standards in sensory analysis. Water Science and Technology, 31, 265–272.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. W., McGuire, M. J. and Ferguson, V. B. 1985. Tastes and odors: The flavor profile method. American Water Works Association Journal, 77, 34–39.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, D. 1975. Who’s Who in Greek and Roman Methodology. Clarkson N. Potter, New York, p. 200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky, B. F., Drake, M. A., Civille, G. V., Dean, L. L., Hendrix, K. W. and Sanders, T. H. 2006. The development of a lexicon for frozen vegetable soybeans (edamame). Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 644–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labuza, T. P. and Schmidl, M. K. 1985. Accelerated shelf-life testing of foods. Food Technology, 39, 57–64, 134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langron, S. P. 1983. The application of procrustes statistics to sensory profiling. In: A. A. Williams and R. K. Atkin (eds.), Sensory Quality in Foods and Beverages: Definition, Measurement and Control. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, pp. 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson-Powers, N. M. and Pangborn, R. M. 1978. Descriptive analysis of the sensory properties of beverages and gelatin containing sucrose and synthetic sweeteners. Journal of Food Science, 43, 11, 47–51.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lassoued, N., Delarue, J., Launay, B. and Michon, C. 2008. Baked product texture: Correlations between instrumental and sensory characterization using flash profile. Journal of Cereal Science, 48, 133–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T. and Corrigan, C. J. 1993. Semantics of astringency. In: K. Kurihara, N. Suzuki, and H. Ogawa (eds.), Olfaction and Taste XI. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Olfaction and Taste and of the 27th Japanese Symposium on Taste and Smell. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, pp. 288–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, E. J. and Noble, A. C. 1986. Comparison of bitterness of caffeine and quinine by a time-intensity procedure. Chemical Senses 11, 339–345.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. and Chambers, D. 2007. A lexicon for flavor descriptive analysis of green tea. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, 421–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lê, S. and Husson, F. 2008. Sensominer: A package for sensory data analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Fur, Y., Mercurio, V., Moio, L., Blanquet, J. and Meunier, J. M. 2003. A new approach to examine the relationships between sensory and gas chromatography-olfactometry data using generalized procrustes analysis applied to six French Chardonnay wines. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 51, 443–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Moigne, M., Symoneaux, R. and Jourjon, F. 2008. How to follow grape maturity for wine professionals with a seasonal judge training? Food Quality and Preference, 19, 672–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotong, V., Chambers, D. H., Dus, C., Chambers, E. and Civille, G. V. 2002. Matching results of two independent highly trained sensory panels using different descriptive analysis methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 17, 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, C. M., Jones, V. S. and Spanitz, S. 2009. Effects and influences of motivation on trained panelists. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 295–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFie, H. J. H. 1990. Assessment of the sensory properties of food. Nutrition Reviews, 48, 87–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marchisano, C., Vallis, L. and MacFie, H. J. H. 2000. Effect of feedback on sensory training: A preliminary study. Journal of Sensory Studies, 15, 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, R. J. and Kirby, S. P. 1988. Sensory measurement of food texture by free choice profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, H. and Martens, M. 2001. Multivariate Analysis of Quality: An Introduction. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, K. and Lengard, V. 2005. Assessing the performance of a sensory panel: Panelist monitoring and tracking. Journal of Chemometrics, 19, 154–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matisse, H. 1908. In: J. Bartlett (ed.), Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucchelli, R. and Guinard, J-X. 1999. Comparison of monadic and simultaneous sample presentation modes in a descriptive analysis of chocolate milk. Journal of Sensory Studies, 14, 235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, L. P., Sylvan, M. and Arrhenius, S. P. 1996. Descriptive analysis for wine quality experts determining appellations by Chardonnay aroma. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonell, E., Hulin-Bertaud, S., Sheehan, E. M. and Delahunty, C. M. 2001. Development and learning process of a sensory vocabulary for the odor evaluation of selected distilled beverages using descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 425–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J. S. and Thomson, D. M. H. 1989. The application of two free-choice profiling methods to investigate the sensory characteristics of chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 3, 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, J. A., Hunter, E. A., van Gemert, L. J. and Lea, P. 2002. Proficiency testing for sensory panels: Measuring panel performance. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • McTigue, M. C., Koehler, H. H. and Silbernagel, M. J. 1989. Comparison of four sensory evaluation methods for assessing cooked dry bean flavor. Journal of Food Science, 54, 1278–1283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meilgaard, M., Civille, C. V. and Carr, B. T. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Fourth Edition. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, A. K. and Suffet, I. H. 1992. Assessing the quality of flavor profile analysis data. American Water Works Association Journal, 84, 89–96.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meullenet, J-F., Xiong, R. and Findlay, C. F. 2007. Multivariate and Probabilistic Analyses of Sensory Science Problems. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, L. J. and Shoemaker, C. R. 1981. Sensory textural properties of stabilized ice cream. Journal of Food Science, 46, 399–402, 409.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H. R. 1988. Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods, Vols. I and II. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, A. M. 1986. Development and application of texture reference scales. Journal of Sensory Studies 1, 55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, A. M. and Civille, G. V. 1998. Universal, product and attribute specific scaling and the development of common lexicons in descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13(1), 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. M. and Delahunty, C. M. 2000. Selection of standards to reference terms in a Cheddar cheese flavor language. Journal of Sensory Studies, 15, 179–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M. and Baxter, I. A. 2001. Descriptive analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International, 34, 461–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murtagh, F. (2005) Correspondence Analysis and Data Coding with Java and R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narain, C., Paterson, A. and Reid, E. 2003. Free choice and conventional profiling of commercial black filter coffees to explore consumer perceptions of character. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nindjin, C., Otokoré©, D., Hauser, S., Tschannen, A., Farah, Z. and Girardin, O. 2007. Determination of relevant sensory properties of pounded yams (Dioscorea spp.) using a locally based descriptive analysis methodology. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 450–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olabi, A. and Lawless, H. T. 2008. Persistence of context effects after training and with intensity references. Journal of Food Science, 73, S185–S189.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nogueira-Terrones, H., Tinet, C., Curt, C., Trystam, G. and Hossenlop, J. 2008. Using the internet for descriptive sensory analysis: Formation, training and follow-up of a taste-test panel over the web. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 180–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, M. 1986. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ömür-Özbek, P. and Dietrich, A. M. 2008. Developing hexanal as an odor reference standard for sensory analysis of drinking water. Water Research, 42, 2598–2604.

    Google Scholar 

  • O.P.&P. 1991. Oliemans Punter and Partners. BV Postbus 14167 3508 SG Utrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskovich, D. C., Klein, B. P. and Sutherland, J. W. 1991. Procrustes analysis and its applications to free-choice and other sensory profiling. In: H. T. Lawless and B. P. Klein (eds.), Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskovich, D. C., Klein, B. P. and Sutherland, J. W. 1990.Variances associated with descriptive analysis and free-choice profiling of frankfurters. Presented at IFT Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, June 16–20, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otremba, M. M., Dikeman, M. A., Milliken, G. A., Stroda, S. L., Chambers, E. and Chambers, D. 2000. Interrelationships between descriptive texture profile sensory panel and descriptive attribute sensory panel evaluations of beef Longissimus and Semitendinosus muscles. Meat Science, 54, 325–332

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, W., Valentin, D., Green, J. A. and Dacremont, C. 2009. Evaluation of French and New Zealand Sauvignon wines by experienced French Assessors. Food Quality and Preference, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.08.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, R. G. 1985. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piggott, J. R. 1986. Statistical Procedures in Food Research. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piggott, J. R. and Watson, M. P. 1992. A comparison of free-choice profiling and the repertory grid method in the flavor profiling of cider. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pineau, N., Chabanet, C. and Schlich, P. 2007. Modeling the evolution of the performance of a sensory panel: A mixed-model and control chart approach. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, 212–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. J. 1988. Current practices and application of descriptive methods. In: J. R. Piggott (ed.), Sensory Analysis of Foods. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffensperger, E. L., Peryam, D. R. and Wood, K. R. 1956. Development of a scale for grading toughness-tenderness in beef. Food Technology, 10, 627–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, B. 1986. Importance of reference standards in training panelists. Journal of Sensory Studies. 1, 149–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, J. H. 1989. The analysis of sensory data by generalized linear models. Biometrics Journal, 3, 781–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rason, J., Lé©ger, L., Dufour, E. and Lebecque, A. 2006. Relations between the know-how of small-scale facilities and the sensory diversity of traditional dry sausages from the Massif Central in France. European Food Research and Technology, 222, 580–589.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Retiveau, A., Chambers, D. H. and Esteve, E. 2005. Developing a lexicon for the flavor description of French cheeses. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 517–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risvik, E., Colwill, J. S., McEwan, J. A. and Lyon, D. H. 1992. Multivariate analysis of conventional profiling data: A comparison of a British and a Norwegian trained panel. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riu-Aumatell, M., Vichi, S., Mora-Pons, M., López-Tamames, E. and Buxaderas, S. 2008. Sensory characterization of dry gins with different volatile profiles. Journal of Food Science, 73, S286–S293.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rutledge, K. P. 2004. Lexicon for Sensory Attributes Relating to Texture and Appearance. ASTM, CD-ROM, West Conshohocken, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, A. and Lunghi, M. W. 1970. The dyad grid: A modification of repertory grid technique. British Journal of Psychology, 117, 323–327.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Eve, A., Paçi Kora, E. and Martin, N. 2004. Impact of the olfactory quality and chemical complexity of the flavouring agent on the texture of low fat stirred yogurts assessed by three different sensory methodologies. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 655–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlich, P. 1989. A SAS/IML program for generalized procrustes analysis. SEUGI ’89. Proceedings of the SAS European Users Group International Conference, Cologne, Germany, May 9–12, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, H.-S., Lee, M., Jung, Y.-J. and Hwang, I. 2009. A novel method of descriptive analysis on hot brewed coffee: Time scanning descriptive analysis. European Food Research and Technology, 228, 931–938.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sieffermann, J.-M. 2000. Le profil Flash. Un outil rapide et innovant d’é©valuation sensorielle descriptive, AGORAL 2000 – XIIémes rencotres. In: Tec and Doc Paris (eds.), L’innovation: de l’idé©e au success,. Lavoisier, Paris, France, pp. 335–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöström, L. B. 1954. The descriptive analysis of flavor. In: D. Peryam, F. Pilgrim, and M. Peterson (eds.), Food Acceptance Testing Methodology. Quartermaster Food and Container Institute, Chicago, pp. 25–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skibba, E. A. and Heymann, H. 1994a. Creaminess Perception. Presented at ACHEMS Annual Meeting, Sarasota, FL, April 14, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skibba, E. A. and Heymann, H. 1994b. The Perception of Creaminess. Presented at the IFT Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, June 23–26, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. and van Trijp, H. C. M. 1988. Free choice profiling in cognitive food acceptance research. In: D. M. H. Thompson (ed.), Food Acceptability. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK, pp. 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., van Trijp, H. C. M. and ten Berge, M. F. 1994. Perceptual mapping based on idiosyncratic sets of attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. 1969. On predicting exponents for cross-modality matches. Perception and Psychophysics, 6, 251–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens. S. S. and Marks, L. E. 1980. Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 379–389.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, V., Stewart, A. and Fonda, N. 1981. Business applications of repertory grid. McGraw-Hill, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoer, N. and Lawless, H. T. 1993. Comparison of single product scaling and relative-to-reference scaling in sensory evaluation of dairy products. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 257–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H., Sidel, J. L., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A. and Singleton, R. C. 1974. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology, 28, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H. and Sidel, J. L. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices, Third Edition. Academic, Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H., Sidel, J. L. and Bloomquist, J. 1980. Quantitative descriptive analysis. Cereal Foods World, 25, 624–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulmont, C., Lesschaeve, I., Sauvageot, F. and Issanchou, S. 1999. Comparative training procedures to learn odor descriptors: Effects on profiling performance. Journal of Sensory Studies, 14, 467–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syarief, H., Hamann, D. D., Giesbrecht, F. G., Young, C. T. and Monroe, R. J. 1985. Comparison of mean and consensus scores from flavor and texture profile analyses of selected products. Journal of Food Science, 50, 647–650, 660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczesniak, A. S. 1966. Texture measurements. Food Technology, 20, 1292 1295–1296 1298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczesniak, A. S. 1975. General foods texture profile revisited – ten years perspective. Journal of Texture Studies, 6, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczesniak, A. S. 1963. Classification of textural characteristics. Journal of Food Science, 28, 385–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczesniak, A. S., Brandt, M. A. and Friedman, H. H. 1963. Development of standard rating scales for mechanical parameters of texture and correlation between the objective and the sensory methods of texture evaluation. Journal of Food Science, 28, 397–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarea, S., Cuvelier, G. and Sieffermann, J.-M. 2007. Sensory evaluation of the texture of 49 commercial apple and pear purees. Journal of Food Quality, 30, 1121–1131.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomic, O., Nilsen, A., Martens, M. and Næs, T. 2007. Visualization of sensory profiling data for performance monitoring. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 40, 262–269.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. M. 1986. Mixed-modality psychophysical scaling: Double cross-modality matching for “difficult” continua. Perception and Psychophysics, 39, 407–417.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whorf, B. L. 1952. Collected Papers on Metalinguistics. Department of State, Foreign Service Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 27–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. A. and Arnold, G. M. 1984. A new approach to sensory analysis of foods and beverages. In: J. Adda (ed.), Progress in Flavour Research. Proceedings of the 4th Weurman Flavour Research Symposium, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. A. and Langron, S. P. 1984. The use of free choice profiling for the examination of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, 558–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, V. 1995. Effect of Geographical Origin and Extraction Method on the Sensory Characteristics of Vanilla Essences. MS Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worch, T., Lê, S. and Punter, P. 2009. How reliable are consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food quality and Preference, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, K. 1994. Attribute Discovery and Perceptual Mapping. M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zook, K. and Wessman, C. 1977. The selection and use of judges for descriptive panels. Food Technology, 31, 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Stocking Hall, Room 106, Ithaca, 14853, USA

    Harry T. Lawless

  2. Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California – Davis, 2003 RMI Sensory Building, 95616, Davis, CA, USA

    Hildegarde Heymann

Authors
  1. Harry T. Lawless
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hildegarde Heymann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lawless, H., Heymann, H. (2010). Descriptive Analysis. In: Sensory Evaluation of Food. Food Science Text Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6488-5_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation