Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
(1)
Project 8013
July 2008
mailto: thierry@opp.nl
introduction
in the sensory theory:
experts
p
p
panels are used for the p
products description
p
consumers should only be used for the hedonic task
they lack two essentials qualities for profiling (consensus
and reproducibility)
there are strong halo effects (Earthy, MacFie & Hedderley,
1997)
in the sensory practice:
consumers are sometimes used for both tasks
it has been proven that consumers
consumers description show the
required qualities (consensus and reproducibility) (Husson, Le
Dien, Pags, 2001)
8013
problematic
8013
8013
Angell
A
(Eau de Parfum)
LInstant
LI
t t
(Eau de Parfum)
Cinma
(Eau de Parfum)
JAdore
(Eau de Toilette)
Pleasures
(Eau de Parfum)
JAdore
(Eau de Parfum)
Aromatics Elixir
(Eau de Parfum)
Pure Poison
(Eau de Parfum)
Lolita Lempicka
(Eau de Parfum)
Shalimar
(Eau de Toilette)
Chanel N5
N5
(Eau de Parfum)
Coco Mademoiselle
(Eau de Parfum)
5
8013
8013
8013
8013
10
expert panel
panel performance
discriminate on 11 out of 12 attributes (Agrume, pvalue=0.08)
reproducible for 11 out of 12 attributes (Notes Florales)
11
8013
12
consumer panel
discrimination (on the twelve original products)
the consumers discriminate the products on all attributes except
camomile (pvalue = 0.62)
NB: the consumers discriminate on Citrus (pvalue < 0.001)
8013
13
8013
14
8013
15
consumer panel
discriminates between the products
shows reproducibility
reproducibilitys
s qualities
lower but still positive correlations (consumers are untrained)
16
Products spaces
(multivariate analysis)
8013
17
methodology
products spaces
the products profiles (averaged over the panellists or consumers)
are computed.
Principal Components Analysis is then run on these product x
attribute matrices
comparison of the two products
products spaces (expert and consumer) is a
multi-table problem
comparison through the Procrustean analysis
comparison through Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA)
(
)
comparison through the confidence ellipses technique
8013
18
expert panel
g p
3,5
3,0
AromaticsElixir
25
2,5
Shalimar
2,0
1,5
Chaneln5
1
JAdore_EP
0,5
PurePoison
JAdore_ET
0,0
CocoMelle
-0,5
-1,0
Bois
Epic
LInstant
Notes.florales
-1,5
Cinema
Dimension 2 (21.87 %)
Dimen
nsion 2 (21.87 %
%)
Pleasures
1,0
Angel
-2,0
-2,5
-3,0
LolitaLempicka
-3,5
-4,0
Oriental
Vert
Capiteux
Agrume
Fraicheur.marine
0
Enveloppant
Fruit
-4,5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Dimension 1 (64.22 %)
Vanille
Gourmand
-1
-1
Dimension 1 (64.22 %)
8013
19
consumer panel
6,0
5,5
5,0
4,5
4,0
LolitaLempicka
3,5
3,0
2,5
Angel
Cinema
LInstant
vanilla
15
1,5
honey
1,0
0,5
JAdore_EP
caramel
0,0
-0,5 JAdore_ET
camomille
Pleasures
-1,0
anis
CocoMelle
PurePoison
citrus
Chaneln5
-1,5
Shalimar
Dimension
n 2 (17.97 %)
Dimen
nsion 2 (17.97 %
%)
2,0
-2,0
-2,5
-3,0
-3,5
-4,0
AromaticsElixir
-4,5
-5,0
-5,5
nutty
sweet_fruit
freshness
green
jasmin
rose
animal
musk
incense
leather
woody
fresh_lemon
earthy
-6,0
-6,5
-7,0
70
i t
intensity
it
-5
-2.5
2.5
spicy
i
7.5
Dimension 1 (68.29 %)
-1
1
-1
Dimension 1 (68.29 %)
8013
20
8013
21
0.3
A
Angel
l
0.1
Cinema
LInstant
JAdore_ET CocoMelle
JAdore_EP
PurePoison
Pleasures
-0.1
0.0
Dim
m2
0.2
0
LolitaLempicka
Chaneln5
Shalimar
-0.3
--0.2
AromaticsElixir
-0.2
02
00
0.0
02
0.2
04
0.4
Dim 1
8013
22
experts
consommateurs
Cinema
LInstant
JAdore_EP
JAdore_ETCocoMelle
PurePoison
Pleasures
Chaneln5
Shalimar
-1
Dim 2 (19.35 %)
Angel
-2
AromaticsElixir
-2
I di id
8013
-1
lf
Dim 1 (64.06 %)
23
MFA variables
representation
expert
Gourmand
vanilla
consumer
honey
Vanille
caramel
anis
Dimension 2 (19.35 %)
D
camomille
nutty
citrus
Fruit
sweet_fruit
Enveloppant
freshness
0
Fraicheur marine
Fraicheur.marine
animal
musk
woody
leather
incense
earthy
Capiteux
green
jasmin
rose
Agrume
Notes.florales
Vert
f h l
fresh_lemon
intensity
Oriental
spicy
Epic
Bois
-1
-1
Dimension 1 (64.05 %)
8013
24
8013
25
confidence ellipses
methodology
1.Compute the product profiles (averaged by product over the judges)
2.Create the products space
3R
3.Re-sample
l b
by b
bootstraping
t t i new panels
l
4.For each new panel, compute new products profiles
5.Project as illustrative the products on the original product space
6.Steps 3 to 5 are repeated many times (i.e. 500 times)
7.Confidence ellipses around the products containing 95% of the data are
constructed
principle
if ellipses are superimposed, the products are not significantly different
the size of the ellipses is related to the variability existing around the
products
p
8013
26
confidence ellipses
Angel
Cinema
LInstant
JAdore_EP
JAdore_ET CocoMelle
PurePoison
Pleasures
Chaneln5
Shalimar
-1
Dim 2 (19..39%)
LolitaLempicka
AromaticsElixir
-3
-2
-1
Dim 1 (64.02%)
8013
27
confidence ellipses
as we have two different panels, we can apply this methodology to
both
creation of confidence ellipses around each product seen by
each panel (24 ellipses are created here)
comparison of a given product through the two panels (same
colour)
comparison off the different
ff
products within a panel (same
(
type
of line)
8013
28
confidence ellipses
Angel
Cinema
LInstant
CocoMelle
JAdore_EP
JAdore_ET
PurePoison
Pleasures
Shalimar
-1
Chaneln5
AromaticsElixir
--2
Dim 2 (19
9.39%)
LolitaLempicka
cons.
expert
-4
-2
Dim 1 (64.02%)
(64 02%)
8013
29
confidence ellipses
partial points
within a product, the ellipses related to the two panels are
always superimposed (no differences between the panels)
8013
30
conclusions
although consumers dont
don t have the habit to describe perfumes
(difficult task), they give the same information as the expert panel (and
its identical to the standard description of the perfumes)
they also have the same qualities (discrimination and reproducibility)
a difference between consumers and experts panel exists in the
variability of the results (more variability for consumers), but this is
compensated by the larger size of the panel (here 103 vs 12)
with co
consumers,
su e s, not
o o
only
y intensity,
e s y, bu
but a
also
so ideal
dea a
and
d hedonic
edo c
questions can be asked in the same time
8013
31
references
Earthy P., MacFie H & Hedderlay D. (1997). Effect of question order on sensory
perception and preference in central locations. Journal of Sensory Studies, vol.12, p215237
Gazano G., Ballay S., Eladan N. & Sieffermann J.M. (2005). Flash Profile and flagrance
research: using the words of the nave consumers to better grasp the perfumes
perfume s universe
universe.
In: ESOMAR Fragrance Research Conference, 15-17 May 2005, New York, NY.
Husson F
F., Le Dien S
S. & Pags JJ. (2001)
(2001). Which value can be granted to sensory
profiles give by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference,
vol.16, p291-296
Husson F., L S.& Pags J. (2005). Confidence ellipses for the sensory profile obtained
by principal component analysis. Food Quality and Preference, vol.16, p245-250
L S., Pags J. & Husson F. (2008). Methodology for the comparison of sensory
profiles provided by several panels: Application to a cross cultural study. Food Quality and
Preference, vol.19, p179-184
8013
32
thank you
special thanks to
Melanie COUSIN
Malle PENVEN
Mathilde PHILIPPE
Marie TOULARHOAT
students from AgroCampus-Rennes, who took care of the whole
expert panel data.
8013
33