Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

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

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
Lauren Dooley, Young-seung Lee, Jean-François Meullenet *
Department of Food Science, University of Arkansas, 2650 N. Young Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study was conducted to evaluate the use and efficacy of check-all-that-apply (CATA) data for the cre-
Received 19 January 2009 ation of preference maps, and to compare these maps to classical external maps generated from tradi-
Received in revised form 27 August 2009 tional sensory profiles. Ten commercial vanilla ice cream products were presented to 80 consumers.
Accepted 11 October 2009
Consumers answered an overall liking question using the 9-point hedonic scale and a CATA question with
Available online 21 October 2009
13 attributes which described the sensory characteristics of vanilla ice cream. A trained descriptive panel
of 17 individuals developed a profile of 23 attributes for the vanilla ice cream products. Preference maps
Keywords:
created by CATA counts were compared to those by descriptive profiles via multiple factor analysis
Check-all-that-apply
Preference mapping
(MFA). The characterization of the products by both sensory methods showed very good agreement
Vanilla ice cream between the methods. The MFA of map configurations showed fair agreement between the techniques
Multiple factor analysis used to produce the preference maps, indicating that CATA data applied to preference mapping gave sim-
ilar results to external preference mapping.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction by a trained panel, or terms can be generated by consumers not

Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions regarding consumer-
perceived product attributes have been used in consumer studies
to determine what sensory attributes may be characteristic of a
specific product (Lancaster & Foley, 2007). Some researchers al-
ready advocate the use of consumer sensory profiling to lead prod-
uct development as an alternative to classical sensory profiling
(Punter, 2008; Worch, Lê, & Punter, 2008). The format of the CATA
question allows consumers to choose all potential attributes from
the given lists to describe the test products. This is different from
scaling in the sense that no intensities are given to the attributes.
In addition, the descriptors are not constrained to product sensory
attributes, but could also be related to product usage or concept fit.
This type of methodology has the advantage of gathering informa-
tion on perceived product attributes without requiring scaling,
allowing for a slightly less contrived description of the main sen-
sory properties of the product tested (depending on how the terms
are created).
The actual generation of CATA terms can be performed in many
ways: the consumers can choose words to describe the product
during the test (modified free choice profiling), terms can be given
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 7853418710.
E-mail address: jfmeull@uark.edu (J.-F. Meullenet).
testing the product (i.e. a focus group). Free choice profiling allows
consumers to use as many or as few words as necessary to describe
the product and evaluate the intensities of the chosen attributes,
resulting in a less expensive and more accurate view of consumer
perception and acceptance (Deliza, Macfie, & Hedderley, 2005;
Gonzáles-Tomás & Costell, 2006; González Viñas, Garrido, & Wittig
de Penna, 2001; Williams & Langron, 1984). However, if each con-
sumer selects his/her own terms, the analysis becomes cumber-
some since each term must be subjectively interpreted and
combined with similar terms (Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr, 2007).
Seo, Lee, and Hwang (2009) used consumers to describe sensory
characteristics of coffee. Verification of the terms was then con-
ducted by other consumers to confirm that the terms were appro-
priate and understandable. While this is an effective method, the
time required is to complete the test is extensive.
Terms generated by a trained panel have the benefit of being
more comprehensive and better described, though they may be
too complex for the average consumer to understand and could re-
quire simplification. Altering the terms in this manner is difficult to
do while retaining the correct term description and definition.
However, it has been shown that differences in sensory evaluations
between trained and untrained (naïve consumers) are minimal
(Benedito, Cárcel, & Mulet, 2001; Guerrero, Gou, & Arnau, 1997;
Husson & Pagés, 2003; Lelievre, Chollet, Abdi, & Valentin, 2008),
so using less obscure terms by a descriptive panel could be a

0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.10.002
 L. Dooley et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401
beneficial tool for creating a CATA list. Ultimately, it is the re-
searcher’s decision as to which method is most appropriate.
The CATA method requires minimal instruction, is relatively
easy to perform and is completed quickly (Lancaster & Foley,
2007). Furthermore, it could be a more practical approach than
intensity scaling from the standpoint of consumer-led product
development. Since CATA responses are directly linked to consum-
ers’ perception of product characteristics, these responses could be
utilized as supplemental data to maximize acceptance of the tar-
geted products by consumers. CATA provides information on
which attributes are detectable according to consumers and how
that may relate to their overall liking and acceptance. Understand-
ing sensory characteristics in the process of new product develop-
ment is of great importance, as failure to obtain correct
information about the sensory attributes may lead to fast disap-
pearance of the new products from the marketplace (Stone & Sidel,
2007).
To understand the relationship between consumer and sensory
data, preference mapping is a useful method. Preference mapping
is a widely used group of multivariate statistical techniques de-
signed to optimize products by understanding the structure be-
tween consumer preference and sensory data to identify drivers
of liking (Faye et al., 2006; Greenhoff & MacFie, 1999). Among
the various product optimization mapping methods, the Euclidian
Distance Ideal Point Mapping (EDIPM), an extension of Multidi-
mensional Preference Mapping (MDPREF), is a new approach based
on a density analysis of individual consumer ideal product place-
ments in the product configuration space (Meullenet, Xiong, &
Findlay, 2007). In this approach, the ideal point of individual con-
sumers is the point which minimizes the correlation between
Euclidian distances to the products and hedonic scores.
Another optimization mapping technique, the Response Surface
Model (RSM), proposed by Danzart, is based on external preference
mapping (Danzart, Sieffermann, & Delarue, 2004). Multidimen-
sional representation of sensory stimuli is first created by sensory
(i.e. external) data. The consumer data for individual consumers is
then regressed against the product coordinates in the sensory
space to determine ideal points for both the individuals and the
group (Meullenet, Lovely, Threlfall, Morris, & Striegler, 2008).
To investigate the efficacy of CATA scales within the sensory
environment, this study used ice cream as the testing medium.
Ice cream is one of the most popular frozen desserts in the United
States. The US ice cream market continues to grow and is expected
to be valued at over $10 billion by 2012 (Datamonitor, 2007). Va-
nilla is the most popular ice cream flavor in the US and accounts
for almost half of all ice cream sales (Bodyfelt, Tobias, & Trout,
1988). There are many companies producing and commercializing
ice cream in the US. In order to compete in this highly competitive
market, it is crucial for ice cream manufacturers to understand the
strong and weak points of their products, and how consumers’ atti-
tudes and preference patterns affect their products.
Table 1
A list of 10 commercial vanilla ice cream products.
Brand Code Name/description
Blue Bell A Homemade vanilla
Blue Bunny B Premium all natural vanilla
Ben and Jerry’s C Vanilla
Best Choice D Vanilla
Breyers E Natural vanilla
Edy’s ‘‘Grand” F Rich and creamy vanilla
Great Value G Vanilla
Guilt Free H Vanilla
Haagen-Dazs I Vanilla
Yarnell’s J Homemade vanilla
395
The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the use of CATA
attribute responses for 10 commercial vanilla ice creams as an
alternative to consumer attribute intensity ratings, and (2) com-
pare CATA-generated preference maps to classical external maps
generated from traditional sensory profiles.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Samples and sample preparation
Fifteen commercially-available ice creams were initially se-
lected from local supermarkets for testing. Preliminary screening
of texture and flavor attributes eliminated five samples due to
brand replication and fat content, a popular indicator of ice cream
quality, and the use of natural or artificial vanilla flavor. Ice creams
were selected so that various combinations of these quality factors
were represented in the study. The 10 remaining products, consist-
ing of two high-fat products, six products with moderate fat con-
tent and two low-fat products, are detailed in Table 1.
One scoop of each product was placed individually into a lidded
white plastic container (45 mm diameter) coded with a three-digit
random number. Samples were stored in a commercial-grade free-
zer (TS-49, True Manufacturing Co., St. Louis, MO, USA) at 18 °C for
at least 24 h prior to testing to ensure sample consistency. All sam-
ples were tempered for 2 min at room temperature prior to serving
for both descriptive analysis and consumer testing. The 2 min
increment was determined to be the most appropriate tempering
time by observing the condition of the ice cream as a function of
time at room temperature. Samples were presented in a sequential
monadic order to panelists according to a complete randomized
block design, and the serving temperature ( 12 + 2 °C) was strictly
monitored to maintain consistency (Bower & Baxter, 2003; Li, Mar-
shall, Heymann, & Fernando, 1997).
2.2. Descriptive analysis
The 10 vanilla ice creams were evaluated for taste, aromatic, fla-
vor, and texture attributes by a descriptive panel of 17 individuals
trained by the SpectrumÒ method (Sensory Spectrum Inc., Chat-
ham, NJ, USA). Panelists have over 100 h of training and an average
of 1000 h of testing experience. Two orientation sessions were con-
ducted to familiarize the panelists with the samples. Flavor and
texture lexicons were developed in four sessions, as described in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The lexicons consisted of 23 total attri-
butes specific to vanilla ice cream and definitions of each sensory
attribute with associated references. Panelists quantified all attri-
butes on a line scale from 0 to 15 (Meilgaard et al., 2007). Unsalted
crackers and water were provided for panelists to clean and rinse
their palate between samples, and a 10 min break helped prevent
fatigue. The flavor attribute testing for all 10 products was
Fat content (%) Flavor Manufacturer
13 Natural and artificial Blue Bell Creameries
10 Natural and artificial Wells’ Dairy, Inc.
24 Natural Ben and Jerry’s Homemade Holdings, Inc. (Unilever)
11 Artificial Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
12 Natural Unilever
5 Natural Nestle
11 Artificial Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
4 Natural and artificial Yarnell Ice Cream Co.
28 Natural Nestle
15 Natural and artificial Yarnell Ice Cream Co.
396 L. Dooley et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401

Table 2
Flavor lexicon for vanilla ice cream.

Term Definition Reference Intensity

Basic taste
Sweet The basic taste, perceived on the tongue, stimulated by sugars and Solutions of sucrose in 2–2.0% 5–5.0%
high potency sweeteners spring water
10–10.0% 16–15.0%
Salt The basic taste, perceived on the tongue, stimulated by sodium Solutions of sodium 0.2–2.0% 0.35–5.0%
salt, especially sodium chloride chloride in spring water
0.5–8.5% 0.55–10.0%
0.7–15.0%
Sour The basic taste, perceived on the tongue, stimulated by acids, such Solutions of citric acid in 0.05–2.0% 0.08–5.0%
as citric acid spring water
0.15–10.0% 0.20–15.0%
Bitter The basic taste, perceived on the tongue, stimulated by substances Solutions of caffeine in 0.05–2.0% 0.08–5.0%
such as quinine, caffeine, and certain other alkaloids spring water
0.15–10.0% 0.20–15.0%
Aromatics
Vanillin The sweet, vanilla-like aromatic characteristic of ethyl vanillin or
imitation vanillas
Cooked milk The aromatic associated with the flavor of milk, heated to the Universal scalea
scalding point
Milky The aromatic associated with skim or whole milk products or milk
derived products
Buttery/fat The aromatic associated with fresh butterfat; sweet cream Heavy whipping Whole milk 4.0
Cream 1/2 and 1/2 6.5
Cream cheese Heavy whip cream 9.0
Flavor
Non fat dry milk The aromatic associated with boxed, nonfat dry milk or milk
reconstituted from dry milk solids, cardboardy
Caramelized A sweet aromatic characteristic of browned sugars and other
carbohydrates
Oxidized The aromatics associated with slightly oxidized fats and oils Universal scalea
Woody/stick The aromatic associated with dry fresh cut wood; balsamic or
bark-like
Metallic (1) The aromatic associated with metals, tinny or iron (2) a flat
feeling factor stimulated on the tongue by metal
Feeling factors
Astringent The feeling factor on the tongue or other skin surfaces of the (1) Alum solution (0.01%) Alum –6.0 Tea –9.0
mouth described as puckering or drying (2) tea in 1000 ml spring
water for 5 min
a
Soda note (soda cracker 3.0), cooked apple note (applesauce 7.0), orange hit (orange juice 10.0), cooked grape note (grape juice 14.0), cinnamon hit (chewing gum 16.0).

conducted on two consecutive days, followed by two consecutive The CATA counts were totaled for each product (Table 5) and the
days for texture attribute testing. resulting contingency table was used in subsequent analyses.

2.3. Consumer testing 2.4. Statistical analyses

Eighty consumers were recruited to participate in the vanilla ice
cream test at the University of Arkansas Sensory Service Center
(Fayetteville, AR). Qualification criteria included adults over
18 years of age and vanilla ice cream product consumption at least
one to two times per week. The test was sequential monadic and
sample presentation orders were balanced in each serving position
using the Williams Latin Square design (Williams, 1949). Each con-
sumer tested five samples the first day and tested the remaining
five the second day. The sessions were divided into 30 min incre-
ments, with most consumers finishing within 20 min.
Consumers were asked to evaluate overall liking, appearance,
flavor and texture attributes of each sample on a 9-point hedonic
scale (1 = ‘‘dislike extremely”, 9 = ‘‘like extremely”). The attributes
of scoopability, color, sweetness, vanilla flavor, creamy flavor,
smoothness, melting in the mouth, melting in the bowl and hard-
ness of each product were evaluated using the 5-point ‘‘Just About
Right” (JAR) scale (data not shown or used in this study). Though
not used in these analyses, since this JAR data was collected, the
authors felt it necessary to mention. The final question of the sur-
vey listed common ice cream attributes and asked the consumers
to check all attributes that applied to the given sample (Table 4).
External preference mapping was performed according to Dan-
zart et al. (2004) using either the descriptive sensory profiles or
CATA counts to determine a group ideal point (Meullenet et al.,
2008). First, principal component analysis was performed on mean
sensory profiles while correspondence analysis was performed on
the CATA counts. To determine the area of the map maximizing
the number of consumers satisfied, a quadratic model was con-
structed (i.e. regressing hedonic scores against the principal com-
ponent scores), and the area of acceptability for each consumer
was identified (i.e. area of the map where the hedonic score was
predicted above the mean score for each consumer). The area of
maximum density was regarded as the ideal point solution for this
method. Both analyses are considered here as external because the
product configurations were obtained from data other than liking.
Since the descriptive profiles and CATA counts were scaled dif-
ferently, the two data sets were standardized across all products
prior to external preference mapping to minimize differences
inherent to the scaling. To standardize the data, the data matrix
had products in columns and attributes in rows. The data was stan-
dardized by columns so that the mean was zero and the variance
was one.
 L. Dooley et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401 397

Table 3
Texture lexicon for vanilla ice cream.

Term Definition Reference Intensity

Scoopability/ The force required to cut the sample with your Evaluate the force required to remove Peanut butter 4.0
manual firmness spoon. 2 and 4 min one/spoonful of sample from the cup
(soft–hard)
Cream cheese 8.0
Metal spoon sample and
references
Hardness-oral The force required to compress the sample Compress through sample one time with Peanut butter 4.0
between the tongue and mouth roof. 2 min tongue. Evaluate the force required to
fully compress the sample (soft–hard)
Cream cheese 9.0
Plastic spoon
Denseness The amount of air or fluffiness perceived in the Compress through sample one time with Marshmallow cream 2.5
sample. 2 min tongue. Evaluate the amount of air
perceived in the sample (airy–compact)
Nougat 4.0
Plastic spoon
Degree of ice The amount of ice crystals felt in the mouth Compress 1/2 tsp of the sample. Evaluate Sherbet 3.0
during the chew. 2 min the amount of ice crystals perceived in the Plastic spoon
sample (no ice–much ice)
Smoothness The amount of particles perceived in the Manipulate the sample three times with Peanut butter 5.0
sample during the chew. 2 min tongue. Evaluate the amount of particles
perceived in the sample (not smooth–
smooth)
Cool whip 14.0
Plastic spoon
Rate of melt The rate in which the ice cream changes forms Place 1/2 tsp of sample in mouth and Soy ice cream 5.0
from a solid to a liquid. 2 min evaluate the rate in which the sample
melts (slow–fast)
Blue Bunny 9.0
Plastic spoon
Mouth coat The amount and degree of residue felt by the Expectorate the sample and feel the Saltine 0.5
tongue when moved over the surface of the surface of the mouth with the tongue to
mouth. 2 min evaluate (none–much)
Ritz 2.5
Pringles 5.0
Mayo 9.0
Elasticity The degree to which the samples appears to Stick spoon in the sample and pull out. Frosting 10.0
have an elastic/doughy impression. 4 min only After three pulls evaluate the amount of Three pulls
sample pulled up by the spoon (none– Plastic Spoon
much)

Table 4 Multiple factor analysis (MFA) was conducted using FactoMineR

An example of check-all-that-apply (CATA) question. in R (v.2.6.2, 2008) to examine the similarities first between the
Check all attributes that describe this sample: descriptive profiles and CATA counts (Figs. 1 and 2) and second be-
h Buttery tween the multivariate product configurations obtained from the
h Sweet three preference mapping techniques employed. For each prefer-
h Milk/dairy flavor ence mapping technique, the coordinates of the ideal points in
h Custard/eggy flavor
the maps were estimated and used in the MFA analysis as illustra-
h Corn syrup
h Artificial vanilla tive data. MFA is a useful statistical technique to analyze the sim-
h Natural vanilla ilarity of a set of observations explained by several different groups
h Creamy flavor of variables on comparable or contradictory scales (Abdi & Valen-
h Soft
tin, 2007). MFA is able to balance the influence of each variable,
h Hard
h Gummy can compare multiple data sets, and can demonstrate patterns of
h Icy attribute correlation (Lê, Pagês, & Husson, 2008; Morand & Pagès,
h Creamy/smooth 2005; Nestrud & Lawless, 2008).

3. Results and discussion

Internal preference mapping was also conducted as a point of
comparison for descriptive analysis and CATA-based external pref-
erence mapping. The comparison seems appropriate since the
CATA-based external preference can be considered as a hybrid
method. Euclidian Distance Ideal Point Mapping (EDIPM, Meulle-
net et al., 2008) was used for internal preference mapping. The
product configuration in the space was derived from principal
component analysis of the centered overall liking data.
3.1. Comparison of product descriptions by CATA and descriptive
analysis
Individual product maps were created by MFA using descriptive
sensory profiles and consumer CATA counts (Fig. 1). Overall, MFA
comparing the characterization of the products by both profiles
showed agreement between the two methods, although only 51%
398 L. Dooley et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401

Table 5
Total counts of check-all-that-apply attributes for each product.

Brand Soft Hard Gummy Icy Creamy/ Buttery Sweet Milk/dairy Custard/eggy Corn Natural Artificial Creamy
smooth flavor flavor syrup vanilla vanilla flavor
Blue Bell 42 20 5 37 31 44 58 60 45 10 25 39 45
Blue Bunny 37 20 7 16 45 46 53 58 35 13 28 33 51
Ben and Jerry’s 21 31 7 22 34 29 53 50 28 16 27 29 44
Best Choice 29 29 4 28 37 43 61 62 32 13 34 33 54
Breyers 8 43 7 61 10 17 57 52 25 11 37 37 24
Edy’s ‘‘Grand” 25 38 4 20 35 39 61 59 26 16 28 43 53
Great Value 51 11 12 8 59 38 46 58 21 12 27 31 52
Guilt Free 34 22 3 29 35 30 52 57 22 23 19 45 35
Haagen-Dazs 17 32 7 14 40 30 61 52 35 21 19 49 43
Yarnell’s 43 16 4 14 51 21 60 54 22 15 24 42 47

Fig. 2. Multiple factor analysis variable correlation circle obtained using descriptive
Fig. 1. Multiple factor analysis individual product plots using descriptive sensory analysis and CATA terms. Refer to Tables 2–4 for complete attribute descriptions.
profiles (D) and CATA counts (C). Product codes are listed in Table 1. ‘CS_c’ and ‘Cflavor_c’ represent creamy/smooth and creamy flavor, respectively, in
CATA terms.

of the variability was explained by the first two MFA dimensions. A
and J showed the largest variance between the two methods, lar-
gely due to the disagreement between the descriptive and con-
sumer (CATA) maps for these two products (not shown). As
discussed by Pagès (2004), based on absolute scores of partial lines
on each product for the first dimension, Fig. 1 indicates that prod-
ucts B, H, I, and J were more characterized for the first dimension
by descriptive analysis profiles than CATA counts. If a line is drawn
from the end of the descriptive and CATA vector for each of these
products to the x-axis, descriptive analysis rates higher on the first
dimension. Products E and G were more characterized by CATA
counts for the first dimension.
Fig. 2 shows the variable correlation circle obtained by MFA
comparing descriptive analysis profiles and CATA counts. The vec-
tors showed a strong correlation for descriptive (d) mouth coat,
smoothness and rate of melt, with CATA counts (c) perceived soft,
creamy flavor and creamy/smooth, between degree of ice (d) and
icy (c), elasticity (d) and gummy (c), and between caramelized
(d) and corn syrup (c). The opposite vector directions for some
CATA and descriptive descriptors with opposite meanings also
show agreement between the two methods. For example, hardness
(c) was opposite to softness (c), and artificial vanilla opposite to
natural vanilla flavor. No correlations were observed between hard
(c) and icy (c), and gummy (c), or between milky (d) and butterfat
(d). Descriptive sensory profiles did not show any correlation be-
tween bitter (d) and sweet (d) taste in the vanilla ice cream prod-
ucts, while bitter (d) had negative correlation with salt (d) despite
its low loading. The most influential attributes (i.e. highest load-
ings) were found to be sweet, bitter, vanillin, degree of ice, elastic-
ity, and smoothness for descriptive sensory profiles. Icy, natural
vanilla, creamy/smooth, creamy flavor and artificial vanilla attri-
butes for CATA consumer profiles played a relatively more impor-
tant role in determining product locations in the map.
3.2. Preference mapping results and group ideal point locations
Each of the three preference mapping techniques employed
(external mapping on descriptive data and CATA and internal pref-
erence mapping) allow the identification of a group ideal product
location in the maps. This point, in all three cases, is the location
in the map maximizing the percentage of consumers who would
be satisfied by a product placed at that location. Ideally, the three
methods would give approximately the same answer and this is
what we seek to assess here.
 L. Dooley et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401 399

Fig. 3. Results of external preference mapping using (a) descriptive analysis profiles (DD) and (b) CATA term counts (DC). The virtual product labeled ‘‘Opt” represents the
location in the map maximizing the percentage of consumers satisfied (Danzart et al., 2004). Other product codes are as in Table 1. Values in parenthesis represent mean
overall liking values.

Fig. 4. Results of internal preference mapping. The virtual product labeled ‘‘Opt” represents the location in the map maximizing the percentage of consumers satisfied
(Euclidian Distance Ideal Point Mapping (EDIPM), Meullenet et al., 2007). Other product codes are listed in Table 1. Values in parenthesis represent mean overall liking values.
400 L. Dooley et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401
The results of external preference mapping using descriptive
sensory data (DD) and CATA counts (DC), and internal preference
mapping are graphically shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The first two
dimensions of the maps explained 50.2% and 59.0% of the variance
in descriptive profiles and CATA counts, respectively. The average
individual consumer fit was similar for the DD map (R2 = 0.59)
and the DC map (R2 = 0.61) (data not shown).
Overall, the products’ spatial representation on the first two
dimensions seemed to differ. The product coordinates used to re-
gress individual overall liking scores for the external maps were
obtained from two different data sources and the disagreement is
not too surprising. For the DD map (Fig. 3a), the ideal product
was closest to product F (OL = 6.7), followed by product D
(OL = 6.8). Product E (OL = 5.5), least liked by consumers, was fur-
thest from the other products, including the optimal product. The
DC map (Fig. 3b) placed the group ideal point near products A
(OL = 6.3) and D (OL = 6.8), while product E was located on the
far left of the map by itself, showing agreement with the DD
map. Product D, which was most liked by consumers, was in clos-
est proximity with the group ideal point for both maps. For internal
preference mapping, EDIPM placed the ideal point closest to prod-
ucts A and D and furthest from product E (Fig. 4). This finding was
similar to that of the DC map.
To more finely compare the level of agreement/disagreement
between the three maps, MFA was employed using the first two
dimensions of the three maps created. Fig. 5 represents the loca-
tions of the 10 commercial vanilla ice cream products and the ideal
product (i.e. individual factor map) determined for each of the
three types of preference mapping on the first two MFA factors.
As shown in Fig. 5, the optimal product was in close proximity
with products A (OL = 6.3), D (OL = 6.8), and F (OL = 6.7), while E
(OL = 5.5) was furthest from the remaining products and the ideal
product. Overall, MFA of the three product maps showed fair
agreement between the approaches employed. However, the DD
map was contrary to the other two methods for products A and J,
while the internal map showed dissimilarities to DD and DC, par-
Fig. 5. Multiple factor analysis individual product plots of the product configura-
tions (first two dimensions) determined for external preference mapping using
descriptive analysis data (DD) and CATA counts (DC) and internal preference
mapping (EDIPM). The virtual product labeled ‘‘Opt” represents the optimal product
derived from the three mapping methods employed. Other product codes are listed
in Table 1.
ticularly for product F. This could be explained by the fact that
product F was near the origin in both DD and DC maps, but was lo-
cated in the far right upper quadrant in the EDIPM map (see Figs. 3
and 4). One key result of this analysis is that optimal product loca-
tion showed little variation between the three maps.
3.3. Ideal product profiles
Although the location of the group ideals in the three preference
maps was reported to be fairly invariable, there is a need to deter-
mine the sensory characteristics that should be exhibited by the
group ideal products. If the three methods are in agreement, we
would expect the sensory profiles of the group ideals to be fairly
similar. To determine the level of agreement between the prefer-
ence mapping methods employed to determine the group ideals
in the three maps, the CATA counts were regressed against the first
two dimensions of the product spaces created using descriptive
analysis data, CATA data and internal preference mapping. From
these models, the ideal product CATA profiles were predicted. This
is also known as reverse regression. Fig. 6a gives the fit of the CATA
attributes for the three mapping methods employed. Overall, the
CATA attributes were better fitted in the CATA space, particularly
natural vanilla, creamy flavor, creamy/smooth, soft and hard attri-
butes (R2 > 0.6).
This is not surprising since this product space was derived from
the CATA data. Overall, the CATA attributes were not as well fitted
Fig. 6. Ideal vanilla ice cream profiles according to descriptive, CATA and EDIPM
data using (a) CATA attribute fit (R2) and (b) normalized ideal CATA counts.
 L. Dooley et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 394–401
in the product/preference space derived from internal preference
mapping while the quality of the fit was somewhere in between
for the product space created from descriptive analysis data. This
result is also not surprising since both the CATA and descriptive
analysis product spaces are based on product sensory properties
while the internal preference mapping product space is based on
liking data.
Fig. 6b represents the ideal sensory profiles in terms of normal-
ized CATA counts for the three mapping methods employed. The
normalization of these ideal profiles are easier to interpret than
ideal raw CATA counts because they show if the ideal CATA count
is above or below the mean of the observed counts. With normal-
ized CATA counts, a positive value indicates that the ideal product
was above the mean CATA count across products for a given attri-
bute. These profiles allow the determination of the level of agree-
ment between the three mapping methods employed. From Fig. 6b,
we conclude that the three mapping methods provided similar
optimal values for gummy, hard, soft, sweet, buttery, creamy/
smooth, icy, creamy flavor and custard/eggy flavor. However, there
was disagreement for natural vanilla, artificial vanilla and corn syr-
up. For these attributes, the CATA methodology recommended high
natural vanilla, low artificial vanilla and low corn syrup CATA
counts.
4. Conclusions
Overall, the characterization of the 10 commercial vanilla ice
cream products shows good agreement between descriptive sen-
sory profiles and consumer-perceived CATA profiles. Moreover,
the CATA attribute data applied to preference mapping gave simi-
lar results to external preference mapping. The advantage of this
technique is that the task asked of consumers is simple (i.e. when
compared to intensity ratings), and that the responses may be
more spontaneous than when intensities are rated. The limitation
of this approach is that the optimal profile derived from the CATA
maps is in terms of response counts and not intensities as given by
a trained panel or consumers using attribute intensity scaling.
Since it can be hypothesized that the three maps created could
have been more similar for product configurations, including opti-
mal points, with additional dimensions being considered, the use
of additional PCs may be of interest in future studies. Although
CATA questions seem to have some validity to characterize the
sensory properties of products as perceived by consumers, many
questions remain unanswered. Further studies may include the
assessment of the effects of order and number of terms CATA ques-
tions on attribute selection.
References
Abdi, H., & Valentin, D. (2007). Multiple factor analysis (MFA). In N. Salkind (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Benedito, J., Cárcel, J. A., & Mulet, A. (2001). Cheese hardness by experts and
untrained judges. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 277–285.
401
Bodyfelt, F. W., Tobias, J., & Trout, G. M. (1988). Sensory evaluation of ice cream and
related products. In F. W. Bodyfelt, J. Tobias, & G. M. Trout (Eds.), The sensory
evaluation of dairy products (pp. 166–226). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Bower, J. A., & Baxter, I. A. (2003). Sensory properties and consumer perception of
‘home-made’ and commercial dairy ice cream. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18,
217–234.
Danzart, M., Sieffermann, J.-M., & Delarue, J. (2004). New developments in
preference mapping techniques: Finding out a consumer optimal product, its
sensory profile and the key sensory attributes. Seventh sensometrics meeting,
Davis, CA, USA.
Datamonitor (2007). Ice cream in the United States: Industry profile. Available from
www.datamonitor.com.
Deliza, R., Macfie, H., & Hedderley, D. (2005). The consumer perception of passion-
fruit juice using free choice profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies, 20, 17–27.
Faye, P., Brémaud, D., Teillet, E., Courcoux, P., Giboreau, A., & Nicod, H. (2006). An
alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive
mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 604–614.
Gonzáles-Tomás, L., & Costell, E. (2006). Sensory evaluation of vanilla-dairy desserts
by repertory grid method and free choice profile. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21,
20–33.
González Viñas, M. A., Garrido, N., & Wittig de Penna, E. (2001). Free choice profiling
of chilean goat cheese. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 239–248.
Greenhoff, K., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1999). Preference mapping in practice. In H. J. H.
MacFie & D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.), Measurement of food preferences
(pp. 137–166). New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Guerrero, L., Gou, P., & Arnau, J. (1997). Descriptive analysis of toasted almonds: A
comparison between expert and semi-trained assessors. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 12, 39–54.
Husson, F., & Pagés, J. (2003). Comparison of sensory profiles done by trained and
untrained juries: Methodology and results. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18,
453–464.
Lancaster, B., & Foley, M. (2007). Determining statistical significance for choose-all-
that-apply question responses. Seventh pangborn sensory science symposium,
Minneapolis, USA.
Lê, S., Pagês, 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, 19, 179–184.
Lelievre, M., Chollet, S., Abdi, H., & Valentin, D. (2008). What is the validity of the
sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors.
Food Quality and Preference, 19, 697–703.
Li, Z., Marshall, R., Heymann, H., & Fernando, L. (1997). Effect of milk fat content on
flavor perception of vanilla ice cream. Journal of Dairy Science, 80, 3133–3141.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (2007). Sensory evaluation, techniques (4th
ed.). New York: CRC Press Inc.
Meullenet, J.-F., Lovely, C., Threlfall, R., Morris, J. R., & Striegler, R. K. (2008). An ideal
point density plot method for determining an optimal sensory profile for
Muscadine grape juice. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 210–219.
Meullenet, J.-F., Xiong, R., & Findlay, C. J. (2007). Multivariate: And probabilistic
analyses of sensory science problems. Iowa, USA: IFT Press/Blackwell Publishing.
Morand, E., & Pagès, J. (2005). Procrustes multiple factor analysis to analyze the
overall perception of food products. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 36–42.
Nestrud, M. A., & Lawless, H. T. (2008). Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using
projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and
consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 431–438.
Pagès, J. (2004). Multiple factor analysis: Main features and application to sensory
data. Revista Colombiana de Estadística, 27(1), 1–26.
Punter, P. H. (2008). Bridging the gap between R&D and marketing: The ideal profile
method. In Third European conference on sensory and consumer research,
Hamburg, Germany.
Seo, H.-S., Lee, S.-Y., & Hwang, I. (2009). Development of a sensory attribute pool of
brewed coffee. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24, 111–132.
Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (2007). Sensory research and consumer-led food product
development. In H. J. H. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-led food product development
(pp. 307–320). Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Williams, A. A., & Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free choice profiling for evaluation
of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, 558–568.
Williams, E. J. (1949). Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual
effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Ser, A2, 149–168.
Worch, T., Lê, S., & Punter, P. H. (2008). How reliable are consumers? Comparison of
sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Ninth sensometrics meeting, St.
Catherines, Ontario, Canada.