Several studies have reported that most new products do not achieve satisfactory results when launched on the market. There is a need to increase the efficiency of the methodologies used in the development of new products to increase success rates. Rapid sensory methodologies named Polarized Sensory Positioning (PSP), Check-all-that-apply (CATA), Projective mapping (PM) or Napping were applied to obtain sensory and hedonic information of a new product, probiotic-added chocolate flavored milk, aiming at determining preference guides that can be used to obtain a high overall liking level. It was possible to develop a probiotic chocolate flavored milk with general positive overall liking. The preferred sample was formulated with high content of sugar and chocolate, concluding that these characteristics are preference guides. The results supplied by the consumers using different methodologies were consistent, although the methodologies differed in their ability for sample differentiation. CATA methodology allowed better discrimination between samples than the other methodologies, followed by Projective Mapping, PSP with scales and triadic PSP. We could confirm that those rapid methodologies of sensory characterization are efficient when applied to product development.
Practical applications
Using those methodologies, it was possible to develop a probiotic chocolate flavored milk that meets both, consumer’s expectations in relation to nutrition and taste and functionality. The methodologies proved to be efficient in characterizing consumer preference guides, and therefore fundamental to the development of a product with higher overall liking.
AdamsJWilliamsALancasterBFoleyM. (2007). Advantages and uses of check all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. In: 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 12–16 August, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
2.
AresGAntúnezLBruzzoneFVidalLGiménezAPineauB, et al. (2015b).
Comparison of sensory product profiles generated by trained assessors and consumers using CATA questions: Four case studies with complex and/or similar samples. Food Quality and Preference45: 75–86.
3.
AresGAntúnezLOliveiraDAlcaireFGiménezABergetI, et al. (2015a).
Pole selection in polarized sensory positioning: insights from the cognitive aspects behind the task. Food Quality and Preference46: 48–57.
4.
AresGBarreiroCDelizaRGimenezAGámbaroA. (2010).
Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies25: 86.
5.
AresGJaegerR. (2013).
Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Quality and Preference28(1): 141–153.
6.
AresGVarelaP. (2014). Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling.
Boca Raton, New York:
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC., p. 408.
7.
AresGVarelaPRadoGGiménezA. (2011).
Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science & Technology46(8): 1600–1608.
8.
BakrS A. (2015).
The potential applications of probiotics on dairy and non-dairy foods focusing on viability during storage. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology4: 423–431.
9.
BalthazarCFPimentelTCFerrãoLLAlmadaCNSantilloAAlbenzioM, et al. (2017).
Sheep milk: Physicochemical characteristics and relevance for functional food development. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety16(2): 247–262.
10.
Bayarri S, Carbonell I, Barrios EX, Costell E. (2011). Impact of sensory sifferences on consumer acceptability of yoghurt and yoghurt-like products. International Dairy Journal 21: 111–118.
11.
Boakes RA and Hemberger H. (2012). Odour-modulation of taste ratings by chefs. Food Quality and Preference 25: 81–86.
12.
BruzzoneFAresGGiménezA. (2012).
Consumers texture perception of milk desserts II - Comparison with trained assessors data. Journal of Texture Studies43(3): 214–226.
13.
CaballeroB. (2013). Sucrose: dietary sucrose and disease. In CaballeroB (ed.) Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition. 3rd ed.
Waltham:
Academic Press, pp. 231–233.
14.
Cadena RS, Vidal L, Ares G and Varela P. (2014). Dynamic sensory descriptive methodologies. Time-intensity and temporal dominance of sensations. In P. Varela, & G. Ares (Eds.), Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling, pp. 333–364. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
15.
DanzartMSieffermannJMDelarueJ. (2004). New developments in preference mapping techniques: Finding out a consumer optimal product, its sensory profile and the key sensory attributes. In: Proceedings of the 7th Sensometrics Conference, Davis, CA. July, 2004.
16.
DehlholmCBrockhoffPBBredieWLP. (2012).
Confidence ellipses: A variation based on parametric bootstrapping applicable on multiple factor analysis results for rapid graphical evaluation. Food Quality and Preference26(2): 278–280.
17.
DooleyLLeeYSMeullenetJF. (2010).
The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference21(4): 394–401.
18.
Fleming EE, Ziegler GR and Hayes JE. (2015). Check-all-that-apply (CATA), sorting, and polarized sensory positioning (PSP) with astringent stimuli. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 41–49.
19.
GranatoDBrancoGFCruzAGFariaJAFNagendraFShahNP. (2010).
Probiotic dairy products as functional foods. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety9, 455–470.
20.
Guarner F and Schaafsma GF. (1998). Probiotics. International Journal of Food Microbiology 39: 237–238.
21.
HillCGuarnerFReidGGibsonGRMerensteinDJPotB, et al. (2014).
The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews. Gastroenterology & Hepatology11(8): 506–514.
22.
HopferHHeymannH. (2013).
A summary of projective mapping observations – The effect of replicates and shape, and individual performance measurements. Food Quality and Preference28(1): 164–181.
23.
HoughGSanchezR. (1998).
Descriptive analysis and external preference mapping of powdered chocolate milk. Food Quality and Preference9(4): 197–204.
24.
HoughGSánchezRBarbieriTMartinezE. (1997).
Sensory optimization of a powdered chocolate milk formula. Food Quality and Preference8(3): 213–221.
25.
JaegerSRChheangSLYinJBavaC MGimenezAVidalL, et al. (2013).
Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Quality and Preference30(1): 56–67.
26.
JosseJHussonFPagèsJ. (2007). Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. In: IASC 07, August 30th–September 1st. International Association for Statistical Computing, Aveiro, Portugal.
27.
Labbe D and Martin N. (2009). Impact of novel olfactory stimuli at supra and sub threshold concentrations on the perceived sweetness of sucrose after associative learning. ChemicalSenses 34: 645–651.
28.
Labbe D, Rytz A, Morgenegg C, Ali S and Martin N. (2007). Sub threshold olfactory stimulation can enhance sweetness. Chemical Senses 34: 645–651.
29.
Lahtinen S, Ouwehand A, Salminen S, Forssell P, Myllärinen P. (2007). Effect of starch-and lipid-based encapsulation on the culturability of two Bifidobacterium longum strains. Letters in Applied Microbiology 44: 500–505.
30.
Lavin JG, Lawless HT. (1998). Effects of color and odor on judgments of sweetness among children and adults. Food Quality and Preference 9: 283–289.
31.
Le DienSPagèsJ. (2003).
Hierarchical multiple factor analysis: Application to the comparison of sensory profiles. Food Quality and Preference14(5-6): 397–403.
32.
LylyMRoininenKHonkapääKPoutanenKLähteenmäkiL. (2007).
Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to use beverages and ready-to-eat frozen soups containing oat b-glucan in Finland, France and Sweden. Food Quality and Preference18(2): 242–212.
33.
ManoukianEB. (1986). Mathematical Nonparametric Statistics.
New York, NY:
Gordon & Breach.
34.
McCainHRKaliappanSDrakeMA. (2018).
Invited review: Sugar reduction in dairy products. Journal of Dairy Science101(10): 8619–8640.
35.
MeynersMCasturaJCCarrBT. (2013).
Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference30(2): 309–319.
36.
MorengaLMallardSMannJ. (2013).
Dietary sugars and body weight: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ346: e7492.
37.
Mortazavian AM, Ehsani MR, Mousavi SM, Sohrabvandi S, Reinheimer J. (2007). Effect of refrigerated storage temperature on the viability of probiotic microorganisms in yoghurt. International Journal of Dairy Technology 59: 123–127.
38.
MoussaouiAVarelaP. (2010).
Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference21 (8): 1088–1099.
39.
OliveiraDAntúnezLGiménezACasturaJ CDelizaRAresG. (2015).
Sugar reduction in probiotic chocolate-flavored milk: Impact on dynamic sensory profile and liking. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.)75: 148–156.
40.
PagésJ. (2005).
Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference16: 642–649.
41.
ParenteMEManzoniAVAresG. (2011).
External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check-all-that-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies26(2): 158–166.
42.
PerrinLSymoneauxRMaÎtreIAsselinCJourjonFPagèsJ. (2008).
Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the napping_procedure: Case of 10 wines from Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference19(1): 1–11.
43.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Vienna, Austria:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 3 November 2020).
44.
ReidG. (2015).
The growth potential for dairy probiotics. International Dairy Journal49: 16–22.
45.
ReinbachHCGiacaloneDRibeiroLMBredieWLBFrostMB. (2014).
Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and mapeo proyectivo®. Food Quality and Preference32: 160–166.
46.
RingroseTJ. (2012).
Bootstrap confidence regions for correspondence analysis. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation82(10): 1397–1413.
47.
RisvikEMcEwanJAColwillJSRogersRLyonDH. (1994).
Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference5(4): 263–269.
48.
RobertPEscoufierY. (1976).
A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV coefficient. Applied Statistics25(3): 257–265.
49.
RossCFWellerKAlldredgeJR. (2012).
Impact of serving temperature on sensory properties of red wine as evaluated using projective mapping by a trained panel. Journal of Sensory Studies27(6): 463–470.
50.
SilvaHLABalthazarCFEsmerinoEAVieiraAHCappatoLPNetoRPC, et al. (2017).
Effect of sodium reduction and flavor enhancer addition on probiotic Prato cheese processing. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.)99(Pt 1): 247–255.
51.
StoneHSidelJL. (1993).
The role of sensory evaluation in the food industry. Food Quality and Preference4: 65–73.
52.
TeilletESchlichPUrbanoCCordelleSGuichardE. (2010).
Sensory methodologies and the taste of water. Food Quality and Preference21(8): 967–976.
53.
TeilletE. (2014).
Polarized sensory positioning methodologies. Novels Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling 1st Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2014), pp. 256–268.
54.
VarelaPAresG. (2012).
Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International48(2): 893–908.
55.
VarelaPSvartebekk MyhrerKNæsTHerslethM. (2014). The best of bothworlds: Rapidity and enhanced discrimination with a trained panel. Exploration of global and partial PSP with a descriptive step. In: 6th European conference on sensory and consumer research, 7–10 September, Copenhagen, Denmark.
56.
VillegasBTárregaACarbonellICostellE. (2010).
Optimising acceptability of new prebiotic low-fat milk beverages. Food Quality and Preference21(2): 234–242.
57.
Yebra-Biurrun MC. (2005). Sweeteners. In P. Worsfold, A. Townshend & C. Poole (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Analytical Science (Second Edition) (pp. 562–572). Oxford: Elsevier.
58.
Yilmaz-ErsanLOzcanTAkpinar-BayizitA. (2020).
Assessment of socio-demographic factors, health status and the knowledge on probiotic dairy products. Food Science and Human Wellness9(3): 272–279.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
