Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products

Rachael Moss; Matthew B. McSweeney

doi:10.1111/joss.12743

journal article Mar 24, 2022

Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products

Rachael Moss Matthew B. McSweeney

Journal of Sensory Studies Vol. 37 No. 3 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/joss.12743

Abstract

AbstractDescriptive analyses or trained panels are one of the most extensively used methods in the sensory evaluation field; however, they can be expensive and time‐consuming. Therefore, researchers have begun to use rapid sensory analysis methods. One of these rapid methods is projective mapping (PM). PM asks the participants to place samples on a two‐dimensional space in a way that reflects their perception of the samples' differences and similarities. This review outlines the main characteristics of 195 studies published using the PM technique. The results reveal that the majority of PM studies asked consumers (61.5%) to evaluate different food products. Most of the studies utilized the Napping variation (60.3%) of the PM method, however, about a quarter of the studies that applied the Napping method did not adhere to the guidelines of the method (e.g., did not use a rectangular space for evaluation). Furthermore, most studies (71.6%) asked the participants to evaluate their holistic perception of the samples and used multiple factor analysis to analyze the results (85.1%). Overall, the review identified the importance of the PM method and how it has been applied to a wide variety of different food products. Future studies should use a larger number of samples and examine how the PM method can be used with older adults and children.Practical ApplicationsResults of this review provide insight for different stakeholders in the sensory evaluation and food science fields. It will assist researchers in designing experiments using the projective mapping (PM) method, as well as provide information about the type of panelists, the different variations of PM and the statistical techniques being used by researchers. In addition, it identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the PM method.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

113

[1]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.010

[2]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.013

[3]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2010.00290.x

[4]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.003

[5]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.006

[6]

10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02657.x

[7]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.003

[8]

10.12944/crnfsj.8.1.13

[9]

10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.079

[10]

10.1016/j.foodres.2004.02.015

[11]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103900

[12]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.05.007

[13]

10.1016/j.foodres.2014.07.027

[14]

10.3390/foods9091213

[15]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.005

[16]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.03.020

[17]

10.3390/beverages4030068

[18]

10.1016/j.foodres.2013.07.056

[19]

10.3390/app11041410

[20]

10.1111/joss.12177

[21]

Rapid descriptive sensory methods – Comparison of Free Multiple Sorting, Partial Napping, Napping, Flash Profiling and conventional profiling

Christian Dehlholm, Per B. Brockhoff, Lene Meinert et al.

Food Quality and Preference 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012

[22]

10.3168/jds.2009-2389

[23]

10.1016/j.foodres.2017.06.001

[24]

10.1016/j.foodres.2014.12.029

[25]

10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108511

[26]

10.3390/foods8060214

[27]

10.1080/10454446.2013.797946

[28]

10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.05.015

[29]

10.1111/joss.12563

[30]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104026

[31]

10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108761

[32]

10.1111/joss.12076

[33]

10.1111/joss.12087

[34]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.017

[35]

10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.05.002

[36]

10.3390/beverages7030046

[37]

10.1111/joss.12101

[38]

10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108901

[39]

10.1016/j.csda.2008.06.012

[40]

10.1080/09571264.2018.1532879

[41]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2010.00302.x

[42]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2008.00204.x

[43]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.07.014

[44]

10.1016/j.foodres.2013.05.015

[45]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.1998.tb00094.x

[46]

10.3390/foods10020474

[47]

10.1533/9781782422587.2.197

[48]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.07.002

[49]

10.1016/j.foodres.2017.05.003

[50]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008

Showing 50 of 113 references

Metrics

17

Citations

113

References

Details

Published: Mar 24, 2022
Vol/Issue: 37(3)
License: View

Authors

R

Rachael Moss

School of Nutrition and Dietetics Acadia University Wolfville Nova Scotia Canada

M

Matthew B. McSweeney

School of Nutrition and Dietetics Acadia University Wolfville Nova Scotia Canada

Cite This Article

Rachael Moss, Matthew B. McSweeney (2022). Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products. Journal of Sensory Studies, 37(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12743

Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products

You May Also Like