Free choice profiling

It is not strictly required to use the same attributes in each data set. This allows the comparison of independent QDA results obtained by different laboratories or development departments in collaborative studies. Also within a single panel, individual panellists may work with personal lists of attributes. When the sensory attributes are chosen freely by the individual panellist one speaks of Free Choice Profiling. When each panellist uses such a personal list of attributes, it is likely that... 

Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 285 R447-454 Kirkmeyer SV, Tepper B J (2003) Understanding creaminess perception of dairy products using free-choice profiling and genetic responsivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Chem Senses 28 527-536... 

In this survey we focused on six methods conventional sensory profiling. Free Choice Profiling, Hash Profiling, CATA, Repertory Grid and Free Sorting. The questionnaire was built in three dimensions in order to assess, for each method, the level of use and of knowledge, the expected output when a method is used (in terms of quality, innovation, etc.), and the main strengths and weaknesses that were perceived in each case. 

Jack, R R. and Piggott, J. R. (1992). Free choice profiling in consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 3, 129-134. 

There are six or seven other descriptive analysis methods described in the sensory literature. The methods include Flavor Profile (CairuCTOSS and Sjdstrom, 1950) or its current version. Spectrum Analysis (Meilgaard et al., 2006), Texture Profile (Brandt et al., 1963), Free Choice Profiling (Williams and Arnold, 1985), and its successor Hash Descriptive Analysis (Dairou and Sieffermann, 2002). There are other methods described in the literature, but all appear to be based on methods previously described. 

Williams, A.A. and Arnold, G. (1985). A comparison of the aromas of six coffees characterized by conventional profiling, free-choice profiling and similarity scaling methods. J. Sci. FoodAgric., 36, 204-214. 

The aim of is to provide quick access to the relative positioning of a set of products. Its principle is very simple. It consists of the combination of a free choice of attributes, as in free choice profiling (FCP), and of a comparative evaluation of the samples for each chosen attribute (attribute-by-attribute protocol) and quantification by the means of ranks. This usually goes with a simultaneous assessment of the whole product set and direct focus on inter-product differeuces. 

Blumenthal, D., Dairou, V, Sieffermann, J. M. and Danzart, M. (2000). How to improve sensory information provided by free choice profiling in preference mapping using individual maps The 5th Sensometrics Meeting. Columbia, Missouri. 

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, 133-145. 

Williams, A. A. and Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, 558-568. 

Tang, C. and Heymann, H. (1999). Multidimensional Sorting, similarity scaling and free choice profiling of grapes jellies. Journal of Sensory Studies, 17, 493-509. 

Amongst the most recently developed sensory descriptive methods. Comparative Free Choice Profiling, also called Flash Profile, was particularly suitable for us, because it... 

Flash profile is a technique developed by Sieffermann (2000) that combines free-choice profiling with a comparative evaluation of the product set. This method is divided into two consecutive steps. It first consists in asking the assessors to individually generate their own attributes to describe the product set. In the second step, assessors are asked to rank the samples according to each of those attributes. As assessors have the whole sample set in front of them, it forces them to focus on the differences they perceive and to generate discriminant attributes. 

The Flash Profile is a quick sensory descriptive method derived from Free Choice Profiling (Williams and Langron, 1984 Williams and Arnold, 1985). It was initially developed as a way to rapidly position products according to their major sensory characteristics (Dairou and Sieffermann, 2002 Sieffermann, 2002). The method allows semantic flexibility, since it does not rely on a consensual description. As a result. Flash Profile can be used to rapidly assess a whole set of stimuli, from which to extrapolate insights into the way subjects perceive factors under investigation (Ballay et al. 2003 Delarue et al, 2004). The method allows quick access to the overall sensory structure of a sample set, which is important in understanding the main sensory differences, or similarities, between products associated with a semantic description (Delarue and Sieffermann, 2004). 

Concerning the sensory attributes (whose interpretation should always be done very carefully when using Free Choice Profiling-based methods), both experts and consumers led to very different corpuses of semantic attributes. We were then able to identify and quantify the consumers terms and, in some cases, to correlate them with the more precise experts attributes. This was particularly helpful to translate some technical terms into consumer words to communicate to our customers. 

To be able to compare consumers and technical vocabulary, participants must not influence each other, whether they be consumers or test drivers. In fact, very experienced experts have a strong influence on each other. Therefore, a free choice profiling method that does not require discussion with the rest of the panel is preferable. Besides, test drivers are available for less than 10 h a month, so a fast methodology is needed. Due to the complexity of the products and the constraints of the evaluations, we choose to use Flash Profile (FP) (Dairou and Sieffermann, 2002 Delarue and Sieffermann, 2004 Tarea et al 2003). 

FP is derived from free choice profiling sessions are always individual. Every assessor uses his own list of sensory terms. Consequently, FP potentially allows... 

Second, not forcing assessors to use the same descriptive terms, as in free choice profiling, was finally a good idea because their perceptions are indeed quite different. 

Blumenthal, D., Dairou, V. and Sieffermann, J.M. (2000a). How improve the sensory information provided by Free Choice Profiling in Preference Mapping using individual maps ln 5th Sensometrics Conference, 9-11 July 2000, Columbia, MO, USA. 

Blumenthal, D., Lino, F., Danzart, M. and Sieffermann, J.M. (1998). Free choice profiling and preference mapping on non-food products. In 3rd Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 9-13 August 1998, Alesund, Norvege. 

---