Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Polarized sensory positioning: Do conclusions depend on the poles?

Luis de Saldamando a, Jenny Delgado b, Pilar Herencia b, Ana Gimnez a, Gastn Ares a,
a
b

Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnologa de Alimentos, Facultad de Qumica, Universidad de la Repblica, Uruguay

Laboratorio de Evaluacin sensorial, Belcorp, Tocancip, Colombia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 24 November 2012
Received in revised form 17 January 2013
Accepted 29 January 2013
Available online 8 February 2013
Keywords:
Polarized sensory positioning
Sensory characterization
Consumer proling
Powdered drinks
Make-up foundations

a b s t r a c t
Polarized sensory positioning (PSP) is a novel methodology for sensory characterization which is based on
the comparison among samples and a set of reference products, called poles. Its main advantage over
other holistic methodologies is that results from different sessions can be compared. This is particularly
useful when working with samples with persistent avours, when evaluating a large number of samples
over a long period of time, or during quality control. Although the key step of this methodology is the
selection of the products to be considered as poles, no studies have been published addressing this issue.
In this context, the aim of the present work was to contribute to bridging this gap by studying the inuence of the poles on results from sensory characterization of two widely different products (make-up
foundations and orange-avoured powdered drinks) using Polarized Sensory Positioning with consumers. Results from both studies provided preliminary evidence about the stability of sensory spaces
obtained with different set of poles (RV coefcients higher than 0.908). However, differences in conclusions regarding similarities and differences among samples were identied between the sets of poles in
both studies, suggesting the need to carefully select stable poles for PSP tasks.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Sensory descriptive analysis is a very powerful tool for the
industry since it provides valuable information about the sensory
characteristics of their products (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Using
this methodology, qualitative and quantitative information about
human perception when using a product can be obtained, which
allows informed decisions when developing new products or reformulating existing ones with the purpose of having better consumer
acceptance or reaching a wider market (Stone & Sidel, 2004).
Sensory descriptive analysis methodologies can be basically divided into classic and novel techniques (Varela & Ares, 2012).
Within the rst group, Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) is
the most popular methodology (Murray, Delahunty, & Baxter,
2001). It involves the selection, training and maintenance of a panel that usually requires from 8 to 20 assessors (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). This panel needs very specic training in each
product in order to provide very detailed, reliable, robust, consistent, reproducible results and stable in time. Furthermore, panel
maintenance is required and this represents high inversions for
companies in terms of time and resources since training can be relatively long as it must be detailed and extensive (Varela & Ares,
2012). The length of training usually ranges between 10 and
120 h, depending on the sensory complexity of the product
Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 29248003; fax: +598 292419906.
E-mail address: gares@fq.edu.uy (G. Ares).
0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.009

(Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Murray et al., 2001). Lastly, the panel
is trained in one specic product. In the context of todays highly
competitive markets the above-mentioned requirements might
hinder the use of this methodology since companies demand quick
responses as well as reliable results. The time and economic resources needed for these methods for small companies, along with
the large variety of products larger companies might have, require
different techniques that allow them to get similar results without
the drawbacks associated with classic descriptive analysis
(Moussaoui & Varela, 2010).
In this context novel techniques are particularly useful
(Valentin, Chollet, Lelivre, & Abdi, 2012; Varela & Ares, 2012). They
all have the advantage of being less time and money consuming, as
both semi trained assessors and nave consumers can be used (Ares,
Deliza, Barreiro, Gimnez, & Gmbaro, 2010c; Cadoret, L, & Pags,
2009; Cartier et al., 2006; Chollet, Lelivre, Abdi, & Valentin, 2011;
Nestrud & Lawless, 2008; Perrin & Pags, 2009). They are also highly
reliable and simple, which makes them very useful with consumers
because information can be gathered in their own terms (Ares,
Gimnez, Barreiro, & Gmbaro, 2010b; ten Kleij & Musters, 2003;
Veinand, Godefroy, Adam, & Delarue, 2011). Identifying consumers
vocabulary could provide very valuable information for new product developers in order to align as much as possible new products
with consumers preferences, and to design marketing or communication campaigns (Varela & Ares, 2012).
There are many novel techniques for product characterization,
including sorting (Lawless, Sheng, & Knoops, 1995; Schiffman,

26

L. de Saldamando et al. / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

Reynolds, & Young, 1981), ash proling (Dairou & Sieffermann,

2002), projective mapping (Pags, 2005; Risvik, McEvan, Colwill,
Rogers, & Lyon, 1994), check-all-that-apply questions (Adams, Williams, Lancaster, & Foley, 2007; Ares, Barreiro, Deliza, Gimnez, &
Gmbaro, 2010a), and polarized sensory positioning (Teillet, Schlich, Urbano, Cordelle, & Guichard, 2010). The present work focuses
on methodological aspects of the last methodology.
Polarized Sensory Positioning (PSP) is a holistic methodology,
developed by Teillet et al. (2010) to explore the sensory characteristics of water. It is based on the comparison of samples with a
xed set of three reference products called poles. Teillet et al.
(2010) used 15 trained assessors but it can be used with semitrained assessors or even nave consumers. In this technique assessors are asked to quantify the overall difference between samples
and each one of the poles using unstructured scales ranging from
exactly the same to totally different. In addition, a descriptive
phase could be performed in order to get information about the
sensory characteristics responsible for the similarities and differences between samples and poles.
PSP is an easy and quick methodology that has the main advantage of enabling to compare products with xed references, even if
they are not evaluated in the same session. This can be very useful
since many novel methodologies for sensory characterization, such
as sorting and projective mapping, require that all samples should
be evaluated simultaneously in the same session. Thus, in order to
avoid fatigue and adaptation, particularly when working with consumers, the number of samples to be evaluated in a single session
is limited when compared to QDA. For this reason, it could be difcult to use the former methodologies when working with products that require careful temperature control or that have intense
and persistent sensory characteristics. In that sense, PSP offers
the solution for this problem since it can be performed over several
sessions, or assessors can take a break in the middle of the session
to prevent fatigue. Besides, due to the fact that reference poles are
used, PSP can be used to compare samples at different moments in
time, which until now was only possible if QDA with trained panels
was used. This is particularly interesting when food companies
want to evaluate differences between samples formulated at different moments in new product development.
Despite its potentialities, only two applications of PSP have
been published (Chrea, Teillet, & Navarro, 2011; Teillet et al.,
2010). Therefore, before this methodology gets established as a
way of obtaining reliable sensory product characterizations, information about its strengths and weaknesses is needed so that informed decisions can be made about its suitability for a specic
application. In particular, considering that the methodology is
based on the comparison of samples with a xed set of poles, research is necessary to determine how reference samples should
be selected, and whether the number and characteristics of the
poles affect results from sensory characterizations.
In this context, the aim of the present work is to evaluate the
inuence of the poles on results from sensory characterization
using Polarized Sensory Positioning.

2. Materials and methods

Two studies using Polarized Sensory Positioning (PSP) with two
widely different product categories (make-up foundations and
powdered drinks) were carried out. In each study two sets of poles
were considered in order to determine their inuence on the results of sensory characterization. Two different experimental designs were used to test the inuence of the poles on results from
PSP. In the rst study a within-subjects experimental design was
considered in order to avoid the potential inuence of working
with different groups of consumers. Meanwhile, in the second

study a between-subjects design was used as a way to assure that

all the consumers who participated in the test were not familiar
with the methodology, preventing the potential inuence of familiarization and expectations.

2.1. Study 1: Make-up foundations

2.1.1. Samples
Eight commercial make-up foundations, available in the colombian market, were selected for the study based on their texture
characteristics. The texture characteristics of the samples are
shown in Table 1. From these samples two sets of poles were considered. In each set, one sample representative of each type of texture (mousse, cream and uid) was selected. The rst set of poles
was composed of samples D, E and F, whereas samples A, B and
C were included in the second set of poles.
Samples were presented in 30 mL closed plastic containers,
coded with random 3-digit numbers.

2.1.2. Polarized Sensory Positioning (PSP)

Thirty female users of make-up foundations participated in the
study (ages ranging from 19 to 64). Participants were selected from
the consumer database of the sensory laboratory of Belcorp
(Colombia) based on their interest and availability to participate
in the study.
Consumers performed two PSP tasks with 8 samples using two
different sets of poles. The evaluations were divided into 2 sessions, held 48 h apart. In each session participants evaluated 8
samples using one of the sets of poles. A balanced rotation was
considered to avoid order effect of the set of poles.
Ten minutes before the test, consumers were asked to wash
their hands and forearms with water and a neutral pH liquid soap.
Every consumer received each one of the 3 poles and 8 different
samples (which included the blind poles to study consumers ability to identify identical samples). Samples were presented following a balanced presentation order. Consumers were asked to apply
each one of the three poles on the internal side of their non-dominant forearm and one of the samples and to quantify the overall
texture difference between the coded samples and the 3 different
poles using a 10 cm line scale ranging from exactly the same to
completely different. Consumers were instructed not to consider
differences in colour or odour. A mixture of isopropyl alcohol and
water (70:30) was applied on the hands and forearms of assessors
in order to clean the zone between samples. For each consumer the
distance from exactly the same to their mark on the scale was
measured for each sample and each pole.
The test was carried out in a sensory laboratory that was designed in accordance with ISO 8589 (ISO, 2007). Evaluations were
performed under articial daylight type illumination, temperature
control (between 23 and 24 C), air circulation and a relative
humidity between 31 and 38%.

Table 1
Description of the make-up foundation samples
used in study 1.
Sample

Texture characteristics

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Fluid
Mousse
Cream
Cream
Fluid
Mousse
Fluid
Fluid

27

L. de Saldamando et al. / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

2.2. Study 2: powdered drinks

2.2.1. Samples
Eight different commercial brands of orange-avoured powdered drinks, all of them available in the Uruguayan market were
considered. A description of the samples is provided in Table 2.
The powdered drink category can be divided into economy, medium and premium products, taking into account the quality and
prices of the products and market positioning data (Varela, Ares,
Gimnez, & Gmbaro, 2010).
Considering the characteristics of the products and preliminary
studies, two sets of poles were considered. Each set of poles was
composed of one sample within the economy price range, one sample containing sugar within the medium or premium category, and
one sample without sugar. The rst set of poles was composed of
samples C, D and E, whereas samples F, G and H formed the second
set.
All samples were prepared by diluting the powders in tap water
as recommended on the package by the manufacturer. They were
stored in a fridge at 15 C, until they were served to consumers,
within 4 h. Samples were served in plastic glasses, coded with random 3-digit numbers.

2.2.2. Polarized sensory positioning

The study was carried out with 92 consumers, recruited from
the University campus based on their availability and interest to
participate (ages ranging from 18 to 60, 40% male and 60% female).
Consumers were divided into two groups of 46, each of which completed a Polarized sensory positioning (PSP) task using a different
set of poles.
According to chi-square tests, no signicant differences between the groups were found in their gender, age or powdereddrink consumption frequency distribution. Therefore, it could be
inferred that differences between results from both groups were
due to the set of poles and not consumer group differences.
The PSP task was performed with nine samples, including the
eight samples shown in Table 2 and a duplicate blind sample (samples B and B1 were identical).
Each consumer received 100 mL of each one of the 3 poles and
approximately 30 mL of the 9 samples, coded with three-digit random numbers. All samples were presented following a balanced
presentation order. Consumers were asked to quantify the overall
difference between the coded samples and the 3 different poles
using a 10 cm line scale ranging from exactly the same to completely different. For each consumer the distance from exactly
the same to the mark on the scale was measured for each sample
and each pole.
The test was carried out in a sensory laboratory that was designed in accordance with ISO 8589 (ISO, 2007). Evaluations were
performed under articial daylight type illumination, temperature

Table 2
Description of the eight orange-avoured powdered drinks considered in study 2.
Sample

Market
segment

Main characteristics

Premium

B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Economy
Economy
Premium
Premium
Economy
Medium
Premium

Contains sugar, vitamins (A, C, E, folic acid) and

zinc
Contains sugar
Contains sugar
Without sugar
Contains sugar and vitamin C
Contains sugar
Contains sugar and sweeteners
Without sugar, contains vitamin C

control (between 22 and 24 C) and air circulation. Mineral water

was available for rinsing between samples.
2.3. Data analysis
2.3.1. Polarized sensory positioning
Data from PSP was analyzed using MFA to preserve individual
data and to compensate consumers differences when scoring global similarities and differences between samples and poles (Teillet
et al., 2010). Data was arranged as presented in Table 3 and MFA
was performed considering data from each consumer as a separate
group of variables. Condence ellipses were calculated using parametric bootstrapping as suggested by Dehlholm, Brockhoff & Bredie (2012).
The percentage of consumers who correctly identied the poles
when presented as blind samples was determined for each study
and set of poles.
2.3.2. Hierarchical cluster analysis
Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify groups
of samples with similar sensory characteristics. This analysis was
applied on samples coordinates in the rst and second dimensions
of the bidimensional maps from MFA of data from the PSP performed with different sets of poles, considering Euclidean distances and Wards aggregation criterion.
2.3.3. RV coefcient
In each study, the regression vector (RV) coefcient (Robert &
Escouer, 1976) was calculated between the rst two axes of the
partial congurations from MFA to analyze similarity between
sample congurations from PSP tasks performed with the two different sets of poles. The RV coefcient is a measure of the similarity
between two factorial congurations, which takes the value of 0 if
the congurations are uncorrelated, and the value of 1 if the congurations are homothetic. This coefcient depends on the relative
position of the points in the conguration and therefore is independent of rotation and translation (Robert & Escouer, 1976).
The signicance of the RV coefcient was tested using a permutation test, as suggested by Josse, Husson, and Pags (2007). If the RV
coefcient between two sample congurations is signicant, it can
be concluded that they are correlated and therefore information
about the similarities and differences among samples is similar.
2.3.4. Inuence of consumer performance on sample congurations
In order to evaluate the inuence of consumer performance on
sample congurations, consumers were divided into three different groups according to the number of poles correctly identied
when presented as blind samples: 3 poles, 2, 1 or none. Results
were analyzed separately for each group and sample congurations were obtained. RV coefcients between sample conguration
of each group and that from the whole consumer sample were
calculated.

Table 3
Example of the data matrix used for analyzing data from Polarized Sensory
Positioning using multiple factor analysis. Each couple of columns RA, RB, and RC
represent the degree of difference between a sample and each of the poles (RA, RB and
RC respectively) for each assessor.
Sample

1
2
...
X

Assessor 1

Assessor 2

Assessor n

RA

RB

RC

RA

RB

RC

...

RA

RB

RC

1.4
0.2
...
3.2

8.3
9.8
...
4.8

0.9
7.8
...
6.4

1.0
8.9
...
5.8

7.6
5.6
...
9.9

8.5
2.4
...
1.4

...
...
...
...

1.3
3.4
...
8.9

7.8
6.5
...
7.5

4.4
6.7
...
1.4

28

L. de Saldamando et al. / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

Fig. 1. Representation of eight make-up foundations in the rst and second dimensions of the multiple factor analysis performed on data from Polarized Sensory Positioning
performed using different sets of poles: (a) Set 1 (samples D, E and F were used as poles), and (b) Set 2 (samples A, B and C were used as poles). Dotted ellipses show clusters
identied using Hierarchical cluster analysis.

All statistical analyses were performed with XLStat 2009

(Addinsoft, Paris, France) and R language (R Development Core
Team, 2007) using FactoMineR (L, Josse, & Husson, 2008).
3. Results
3.1. Inuence of the set of poles on results from PSP
3.1.1. Study 1: make-up foundations
As shown in Fig. 1(a) when the rst set of poles was considered,
the rst dimension of the MFA explained 44.7% of the variance of
the experimental data, whereas the second explained 13.6%.
According to hierarchical cluster analysis samples were sorted into
three main groups (Fig. 1(a)), corresponding to the different textural characteristics of the make-up foundations: uid (samples
A, E, G and H), mousse (samples B and F) and cream (samples C

and D). Except for samples C and D (samples with a cream-like texture), the discriminative capacity of the methodology within each
group of samples was low since their condence intervals
overlapped.
In the case of the second set of poles, the rst two dimensions of
the MFA explained 59.7% of the variance of the experimental data
(Fig. 1(b)), similar to the explained variance when the rst set of
poles was considered. As shown, samples were sorted into four
main groups. Samples B and F (corresponding to make-up foundations with a mousse-like texture), were located at negative values
of the rst dimension and positive values of the second dimension,
being clearly different from the rest (Fig. 1(b)). Samples A, E, G and
H (with a liquid texture) were located at positive values of the rst
dimension, being close to sample D, which had a cream-like texture. Finally, sample C was sorted apart from the rest of the samples, being more similar to samples F and B.

L. de Saldamando et al. / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

Table 4
Percentage of consumers who correctly identied each one of the three poles when
they were presented as blinded samples when the two sets of poles were considered
in the polarized sensory positioning task of study 1.
Set of
poles

Pole A
(mousse-like texture) %

Pole B
(cream-like texture) %

Pole C
(liquid texture) %

Set 1
Set 2

77
73

67
67

83
80

The RV coefcient between sample congurations obtained

with the two different sets of poles was 0.945 (p = 0.002). However,
conclusions regarding similarities and differences between sample
D and the rest of the samples differed. According to Hierarchical
cluster analysis performed on data from the rst set of poles, sample D was grouped with sample C, whereas when the second set of

29

poles was considered sample D was grouped with samples A, E, G

and H (Fig. 1).
As shown in Fig. 1, there were no systematic differences between the sample sets regarding the size of the condence ellipses.
The condence ellipses of samples D and H were bigger for the rst
set of poles, whereas the opposite trend was found for sample C.
For the rest of the samples the size of the condence ellipses was
almost the same for both sets of poles. This suggests that the choice
of poles did not have a marked inuence on the degree of agreement among consumers.
Regarding consumers ability to correctly identify samples
which were identical to the poles, as shown in Table 4, no signicant differences between the methodologies were found
(v2 = 0.01, p = 0.994). The average percentage of consumers who
correctly identied the poles, when presented as blind samples,
was 75%.

Fig. 2. Representation of nine orange-avoured powdered drink samples in the rst and second dimensions of the multiple factor analysis performed on data from Polarized
Sensory Positioning performed using two sets of poles: (a) Set 1 (samples C, D and E were used as poles), and (b) Set 2 (samples F, G and H were used as poles). Dotted ellipses
show clusters identied using Hierarchical cluster analysis.

30

L. de Saldamando et al. / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

3.1.2. Study 2: powdered drinks

When the rst set of poles was considered the rst two dimensions of the MFA explained 50.0% of the variance of the experimental data. Fig. 2(a) shows sample representation in the rst two
dimensions of the MFA. As shown, samples B and B1 were located
close to each other and their condence ellipses overlapped, indicating a good reproducibility.
According to hierarchical cluster analysis samples were sorted
into four main groups (Fig. 2(a)). Samples B, B1, C and F were located at positive values of the rst dimension, which indicates
their similarity. This result is reasonable because these samples
were formulated with sugar and corresponded to brands within a
low price range (cf. Table 2). Sample D was regarded as clearly different from the rest, being located at negative values of the rst
dimension and positive values of the second dimension. This sample was formulated with no added sugar. Although the formulation
of sample H was similar, it was not placed close to sample D. Sample H was regarded as similar to sample E (their condence ellipses
partially overlapped); being located at negative values of the rst
dimension and positive values of the second dimension. Finally,
samples A and G were located at an intermediate position and their
condence ellipses overlapped. These two samples corresponded
to brands within a high price range.
When the second set of poles was considered the rst and second dimensions of the MFA explained 49.5% of the variance of the
experimental data (Fig. 2(b)). Samples B and B1 were again located
close to each other and their condence ellipses overlapped, indicating the reproducibility of the methodology. However, it is
important to highlight that with this set of poles samples B and
B1 were closer than with the rst set of poles.
As shown in Fig. 2(b), samples were sorted into four main
groups. Samples B, B1, C and F, which corresponded to brands
within a low price range, were regarded as similar and their condence ellipses partially overlapped. In this case samples D and H
(formulated without sugar) were sorted apart from the rest, being
located at positive values of the rst and second dimensions. Samples A and G (formulated with sugar and corresponding to brands
within a high price range) were regarded as similar and were located at negative values of the second dimension. Finally, sample
E was located at a distinct position, showing intermediate sensory
characteristics from those of Samples A and H.
Sample congurations obtained with the two different sets of
poles were very similar (Fig. 2), showing an RV coefcient of
0.908 (p = 0.008). However, some differences could be highlighted.
Also, samples D and H, which are formulated without sugar, were
close to each other and their condence ellipses overlapped in sample conguration from PSP with the second set of poles, but were
quite far from each other when results from the rst set were considered. Secondly, the condence ellipse of sample E, which was
formulated with sugar and corresponded to a premium brand, overlapped with that of sample H when considering the rst set of poles,
whereas this sample was closer to samples A and G when considering the second set of poles. Considering its characteristics (cf. Table
2) it was reasonable that sample E would be similar to A and G.
As shown in Fig. 2, the condence ellipses of samples B and E
were slightly bigger for the rst set of poles, while the opposite
trend was found for samples F and H. For the rest of the samples
the size of the condence ellipses was comparable between the
set of poles, suggesting no difference in the agreement among consumers between the set of poles.
No signicant differences between the methodologies were
found (v2 = 0.37, p = 0.832) between the two different sets of poles
in consumers ability to correctly identify samples which were
identical to the poles, as shown in Table 5. The average percentage
of consumers who correctly identied the poles, when presented
as blind samples, was 68%.

Table 5
Percentage of consumers who correctly identied each one of the three poles when
they were presented as blinded samples when the two sets of poles were considered
in the polarized sensory positioning task of study 2.
Set of
poles

Pole A
(economy drink) %

Pole B
(without sugar) %

Pole C
(with sugar) %

Set 1
Set 2

76
70

70
78

56
59

3.2. Inuence of consumer performance on sample congurations

The inuence of consumer performance on sample congurations from PSP was evaluated by comparing results from groups
of consumers who correctly identied different numbers of poles
when presented as blind samples.
In Study 1 the RV coefcients between sample congurations
from consumers who correctly identied 1 or less poles and those
from the whole consumer sample were lower or equal than 0.64
(Table 6). Meanwhile, for consumers who correctly identied 2
or 3 poles the coefcient was higher or equal than 0.93 for both
sets of poles.
As shown in Table 7, similar results were obtained for Study 2.
These results suggest that consumers who were not able to identify
blind poles did not have a large inuence on sample congurations.
Besides, the size of the condence ellipses did not largely differ between sample congurations from the whole consumer sample
and those from consumers who correctly identied 2 or 3 poles
(data not shown).

4. Discussion and conclusions

PSP seems to be a quick and interesting methodology for sensory characterization of products. The methodology relies on the
comparison among samples and a set of reference products, called
poles, which enables to compare data from different sessions. This
is a clear advantage over projective mapping and sorting tasks, particularly when working with samples with persistent avours, or
when a large number of samples should be evaluated over a long
period of time or for quality control.
According to Teillet et al. (2010) this methodology provides
similar results to Descriptive analysis or sorting tasks.
In the present work global results from sensory characterization
of make-up foundations using PSP was in agreement with expected
texture differences among samples, and results obtained with orange-avoured powdered drinks were in agreement with formulation and market positioning information. This provides preliminary
evidence of the validity of PSP for sensory characterization with
Table 6
RV coefcient between sample congurations of three consumer groups which
identied different numbers of poles when presented as blind samples and the whole
consumer sample, for study 1.
Set of poles

Consumer group

Set 1

3 poles (n = 11)
2 poles (n = 13)
1 or 0 poles (n = 6)
Whole consumer sample (n = 30)
3 poles (n = 13)
2 poles (n = 10)
1 or 0 poles (n = 7)
Whole consumer sample (n = 30)

Number of poles correctly

identied
3

Set 2

signicant at p 6 0.05.
signicant at p 6 0.01.
ns
not signicant (p > 0.05).

**

1
0.87
0.43ns
0.94
1
0.88
0.53
0.96

1 or 0

1
0.54
0.93

0.64

1
0.57
0.93

1
0.61

L. de Saldamando et al. / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

Table 7
RV coefcient between sample congurations of three consumer groups which
identied different numbers of poles when presented as blind samples and the whole
consumer sample, for study 2.
Set of poles

Consumer group

Set 1

3 poles (n = 16)
2 poles (n = 18)
1 or 0 poles (n = 12)
Whole consumer sample (n = 46)
3 poles (n = 18)
2 poles (n = 17)
1 or 0 poles (n = 11)
Whole consumer sample (n = 46)

Number of poles correctly

identied
3

Set 2

*
**

1
0.81
0.64
0.96
1
0.87
0.79
0.95

1 or 0

1
0.50
0.90

0.68

1
0.64
0.87

1
0.83

signicant at p 6 0.05.
signicant at p 6 0.01.
signicant at p 6 0.001.

***

consumers. It is important to highlight that in the original application PSP was used with 15 trained assessors for sensory characterization of water.
In both studies the majority of consumers correctly identied
the poles when they were presented as blind samples. The average
percentage of correct identications was 75% for the make-up
foundation samples and 68% for the powdered drink samples.
The ability to correctly identify the three poles was not signicantly affected by the different sets of poles.
A possible alternative for obtaining better discrimination in PSP
would be to analyze results considering only data from those
assessors who correctly identied two or three poles. However, results from the present work showed that removing assessors with
poor performance did not markedly modify sample congurations
(cf. Tables 6 and 7). This suggests that sample congurations were
mainly determined by data from those consumers who showed a
good performance (i.e. those who correctly identied two or three
of the poles when presented as blind samples), so removing consumers with poor performance seems not to be relevant. However,
considering the similarity of the congurations provided by consumers who identied 2 and 3 poles (Table 2), identifying at least
2 of the poles would be a good criterion for selecting the best
assessors for sensory characterizations from PSP.
The key step of PSP is the selection of the poles. Therefore, research is needed to understand how the nature and number of
products selected as poles affect results. The present work contributes to bridging this gap by comparing results from sensory characterization of two widely different products (make-up
foundations and orange-avoured powdered drinks) using PSP
with two different sets of poles. In both studies the sensory spaces
were similar regardless the set of poles considered (RV coefcient
higher than 0.908), suggesting that conclusions regarding the main
similarities and differences among samples were not affected by
the selection of poles. Besides, changing the poles did not largely
affect agreement among consumers, as denoted by the size of the
condence ellipses (cf. Figs. 1 and 2).
However, in both studies some differences were also identied.
In the make-up foundation study results from the PSP task with the
rst set of poles better reected the expected differences among
samples than results obtained with the second set. With the rst
set, samples C and D were regarded as similar (Fig. 1), as expected
by their similar cream-like texture (cf. Table 1). Meanwhile, in the
powdered drink study, results obtained with the second set of
poles were more in agreement with what was expected according
to product formulation and market positioning data (cf. Table 2)
than results obtained with the rst set of poles. Sample E, which
was a premium drink formulated with sugar was expected to be

31

closer to samples A and G (as observed in results from the second

set of poles) than to sample H (as in the rst set of poles).
As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the poles tended to dene the sensory
space in which the rest of the samples were located. In both studies
the poles were located at extreme positions in the sensory space
and the rest of the samples were located within that space, according to their global similarities and differences with the poles. This
result suggests that the poles should be widely different products
in order to span the sensory space as much as possible. If the poles
are too similar, the differentiation of samples would be more difcult since samples could be similar to more than one pole and the
discriminative ability of the methodology would be lower. For this
reason, when selecting the poles for PSP it is important to have previous information about the sensory characteristics of the samples
that are going to be tested to assure that the selected poles cover
the whole sensory space. Meanwhile, a random selection of poles
would not be recommended.
Results from the present work provided preliminary evidence
about the stability of sensory spaces obtained with PSP using different sets of poles. However, working with different sets of poles
affected conclusions regarding similarities and differences among
products to some extent, indicating the need for further studies.
This type of research is required to better understand the inuence
of the number and characteristics of poles on results from PSP
when working with different sample sets. It would be interesting
to compare the inuence of changing the samples used as poles
on results from PSP in different studies, widely differing in product
category, sensory complexity and magnitude of the differences
among samples. Product complexity could largely affect the inuence of poles since assessors are asked to quantify the overall difference among samples. It would be expected that changing the
poles would have a greater inuence when working with complex
products since assessors might take into account different attributes to compare samples and poles. Besides, further studies
addressing the inuence of the choice of poles on the validity of
PSP for sensory characterization are necessary. In this sense, comparison of results from PSP with trained assessor data would be
useful.
Another relevant issue that should be taken into account is the
level of expertise of the assessors. The inuence of the set of poles
could be higher for nave assessors than for trained assessors with
experience in the product category. Therefore, the inuence of the
set of poles on results from PSP should be evaluated when working
with trained assessors and consumers for sensory characterization
of the same sample set.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to CSIC (Comisin Sectorial de Investigacin Cientca, Universidad de la Repblica) for nancial
support.
References
Adams, J., Williams, A., Lancaster, B., & Foley, M. (2007). Advantages and uses of
check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for
salty snacks. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. Minneapolis, USA, 12
16 August, 2007.
Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Gimnez, A., & Gmbaro, A. (2010a). Application of a
check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 6786.
Ares, G., Gimnez, A., Barreiro, C., & Gmbaro, A. (2010b). Use of an open-ended
question to identify drivers of liking of milk desserts. Comparison with
preference mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 286294.
Ares, G., Deliza, R., Barreiro, C., Gimnez, A., & Gmbaro, A. (2010c). Comparison of
two sensory proling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality
and Preference, 21, 417426.
Cadoret, M., L, S., & Pags, J. (2009). A factorial approach for sorting task data
(FAST). Food Quality and Preference, 20, 410417.

32

L. de Saldamando et al. / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 2532

Cartier, R., Rytz, A., Lecomte, A., Poblete, E., Krystlik, J., Belin, E., et al. (2006). Sorting
procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a
product sensory map. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 562571.
Chrea, C., Teillet, E., & Navarro, S. (2011). Application of the polarized sensory
positioning in the cosmetic area. 9th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium.
Toronto, Canada, 48 September, 2011.
Dairou, V., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2002). A comparison of 14 jams characterized by
conventional prole and a quick original method, ash prole. Journal of Food
Science, 67, 826834.
ISO (2007). Sensory analysis: General guidance for the design of test rooms, ISO 8589.
Geneve: International Organization for Standardization.
Josse, J., Husson, F., & Pags, J. (2007). Testing the signicance of the RV coefcient.
In IASC 07, August 30th - September 1st, 2007, Aveiro, Portugal.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and
practices (2nd edition). New York: Springer.
Lawless, H. T., Sheng, N., & Knoops, S. S. C. P. (1995). Multidimensional scaling of
sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 9198.
L, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate
analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 118.
Moussaoui, K. A., & Varela, P. (2010). Exploring consumer product proling
techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food
Quality and Preference, 21, 10881099.
Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M., & Baxter, I. A. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis:
Past, present and future. Food Research International, 34, 461471.
Pags, J. (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 Preference, 16, 642649.
Perrin, L., & Pags, J. (2009). Construction of a product space from the ultra-ash
proling method: Application to 10 red wines from the Loire Valley. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 24, 373395.

R Development Core Team (2007). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical

Computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Risvik, E., McEvan, J. A., Colwill, J. S., Rogers, R., & Lyon, D. H. (1994). Projective
mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and
Preference, 5, 263269.
Robert, P., & Escouer, Y. (1976). A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical
methods: the RV coefcient. Applied Statistics, 25, 257265.
Schiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L., & Young, F. W. (1981). Introduction to
multidimensional scaling. New York: Academic Press.
Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (2004). Sensory evaluation practices. London: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Teillet, E., Schlich, P., Urbano, C., Cordelle, S., & Guichard, E. (2010). Sensory
methodologies and the taste of water. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 967976.
ten Kleij, F., & Musters, P. A. D. (2003). Text analysis of open-ended survey
responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and
Preference, 14, 4352.
Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelivre, M., & Abdi, H. (2012). Quick and dirty but still
pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science. International
Journal of Food Science & Technology, 47, 15631578.
Varela, P., & Ares, G. (2012). Sensory proling, the blurred line between sensory and
consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food
Research International, 48, 893908.
Varela, P., Ares, G., Gimnez, A., & Gmbaro, A. (2010). Inuence of brand
information on consumers expectations and liking of powdered drinks in
central location tests. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 873880.
Veinand, B., Godefroy, C., Adam, C., & Delarue, J. (2011). Highlight of important
product characteristics for consumers. Comparison of three sensory descriptive
methods performed by consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 474485.