Sorting, Napping® &co

Let’s practice!
 Holistic / global approaches
Analytical
Traditional descriptive analyses

Free Choice profiling

Flash profiling

Main
reasons Less cost

to try Reduce time

Criteria important to the individual

Sorting, Napping®

Spontaneous
 Are you sure the goal is reached?
A lot of comments about the methods (various comments
heard among users):
POSITIVE ASPECTS
“It's easy to perform and easy for panelists to
understand”
“useful as initial screening of prototypes or
category samples.”
‘very intuitive... ’
“practical to screen sensory properties of a
large set of products”
…

Sorting
NEGATIVE ASPECTS
“needs a certain amount of products to make
it work, but this is not always possible”
“not a diagnostic tool”
“request simultaneous presentation of
products and not suitable for cosmetic
products”
“Sorting is a technique to discover what is
salient to consumers/judges not a substitute
for DA”
…
 Are you sure the goal is reached?
A lot of comments about the methods (various comments
heard among users):
POSITIVE ASPECTS
“rapid, inexpensive, easy-to-use”
“compact, easy to visualize”
“highly flexible and easy to understand
for consumer”
“practical to screen sensory properties
of a large set of product”
…

Napping®
NEGATIVE ASPECTS
“hard to understand”
“challenge to analyse”
“hard to interprete, time consuming”
“difficult for consumers to position the
products”
“Very difficult task for consumers + data
analysis”
…
Application of the methods in real life

The idea of this tutorial is to have a look at the main difficulties of the
two methods and to see the way they have been used, modified,
transformed, adapted by the different users to suit their needs facing
the different difficulties.

We will just propose some solutions that we have seen working for
some users, we won’t discuss them. They may be suitable for you,
your products, your working area… or not.
It’s just a panel where you may pick ideas for your own work.

Calculation seems to be a key point: difficult for some, easy for

others… We will see this with the specialist Sebastien who will explain
what you can do with all this.
 The example used in this presentation

The objects are 16 cards. Each card contains a geometric

shape combining 7 criteria (shape, color, size...).
Those cards have been presented several times by
AgroCampus Ouest in different publications.
The sorting Task
 The simple sorting task
The subject is invited to group the different products according to
their resemblances.

For example, you can ask:

Please group the different products according to their resemblances.
You must put two products in the same group if they are similar.
You must assess the resemblances or the differences between these
products according to your own criteria.
 The structure of the collected data set
Each subject gives his own partition of the 16 cards.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 1

Group 1 Group 1 …

Group 2 Group 3 …

Group 3 Group 2 …

Group 2 Group 3 …
 How to code data
N subjects are sorting P products.
For a particular subject, K groups are built.
You can consider this as:
• N Partitions of P products
• N Individual dissimilarity matrix (distance matrix)
• Aggregated dissimilarity matrix
• N Individual disjunctive table
• Aggregated disjunctive table
Depending on the calculation method you will apply,
the data will be coded differently.
 Example for Subject (1)

0 0 1 1 1

0 0 1 1 1

1 1 0 1 0

1 1 1 0 1

1 1 0 1 0

and in group 1 so distance()=0

and in different group so distance()=1

Dissimilarity Matrix for Subject

Example for Subject (2)
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

1 0 0

1 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 1

0 1 0

Disjunctive table for Subject

 Calculations : a lot of possibilities (1)

Family Sub Family Data used Methods Bibliography

Kruskal, 1964
Metric MDS
Gygi et al, 2007

Aggregated
dissimilarity Schiffman, 1981; Lawless, 1989
matrix
Non metric MDS Falahee et al, 1997
Methods closed to Faye et al, 2004
Multidimensional
scaling
Metric INDSCAL Caroll et Chang, 1970
Individual Distatis Abdi et al, 2007
dissimilarity
matrix
Factorial Methods

Non Metric
Takane et al, 1977
INDSCAL

Methods closed ACM Van der Kloot et Van Herk, 1991

to multiple
correspondence Disjunctive table MDSORT Takane, 1981
analysis FAST Cadoret et al, 2009

IDSORT Takane, 1982

CCSORT Qannari et al, 2009
Calculations : a lot of possibilities (2)

Family Data used Methods Bibliography

Lebart et al, 2006

Hierachical Coxon, 1999
clustering Lawless, 1989
Giboreau et al, 2001
Clustering Aggregated
dissimilarity matrix

Sattah et Tversky, 1977

Additive trees Barthélémy in Dubois, 1991
Poitevineau, 2002

Extract : MODULAD, 2011, Num43, P.Faye, P.Courcoux, E.M.Qannari, A.Giboreau

 Calculations : a lot of possibilities (3)

You will see an example of what can be done easily with R

later with Sebastien.

Several topics of the conference will also cover this.

 Used, modified, transformed, adapted…
Used with trained panel, consumers, specialists (panel not
formally trained but highly experienced) depending on the
objective

Verbalization task: the subjects are asked to describe the

groups
• Free comments
• Comments with a predefined list of terms

Hierarchical sorting task

• Descending: first the judges have to divide the set of products into
groups and he can subdivide these groups into finer groups, etc.,
until the final groups of products are homogeneous (Cadoret &Al,
2010)
• Ascending: make bigger groups of the groups previously made
(Qannari &Al, 2010)
Used to understand the process of a sorting task.
Example : Hierarchical sorting task
Napping®
 Napping®
Projective mapping was first introduced by Risvik & al. 1994.
Napping® (The name derives from the French word ‘nappe’,
meaning ‘tablecloth' ) has been elaborated by Pages & al.
2003.

Each subject is given all the samples and a large table or

sheet of paper. They arrange their samples on the table,
using the distance between them to indicate how similar
(closely spaced) or different (more widely spaced) they
perceive them to be.

For example, you can ask:

Please position the different products on the rectangular map. The closer two
products are, the more similar they seem to be. Conversely, two products are
distant if you perceive much difference between them. You must assess the
resemblances or the differences between these products according to your own
criteria.
 Napping®

Closed products
Very different products
 The structure of the collected data set

Yj

Xj
 The structure of the collected data set
Each subject gives 2 coordinates for the 16 cards.

X Y X Y X Y

Xj Yj
 Calculations : a lot of possibilities
The final data frame is composed of P individual and 2*N
variables.
Several statistical methods have been developed to analyze this
kind of structure.

The most known (used?) are MFA (Multiple Factorial Analyses),

PMFA (Procustean Multiple Factor Analyses), INDSCAL
model, DISTATIS…

The aim of those algorithms is to find a common configuration

that will represent the product space (MFA, INDSCAL,
DISTATIS) and to compare the structure given by each
subject to the common configuration (PMFA).
 Used, modified, transformed, adapted…
Used with trained panel, consumers, specialists (panel not formally trained
but highly experienced) depending on the objective

Verbalization task: the subjects are asked to describe the products to

explain the dimensions of the resulting perceptual map
• Free comments
• Comments with a predefined list of terms (it can be a very long list of terms
near 200-300 items)

Spontaneity vs Easier and faster interpretation… and as time is money…

 Structure & size of the ‘tablecloth’
Sometimes you may need axes to be more structured or the
subject may need to materialize them.

Cr. P. Deneulin
Structure & size of the ‘tablecloth’

The subject may be able

to directly explain the
axis he chose.

On a square map, the subject may

be able to define the graduation of
the axes and modify them.
For example here, the subject could
want to precise that the origin of the
X axis is not null as a shape exists
on the card.
 Napping® by modality
Idea first suggested by Pagès (2003), tested and presented by
Gilbert (2008) as a “happy medium” between the complete
holistic approach and the analytical approach of a profiling
by attribute.

It consists in conducting a Napping® exercise separately for

each relevant sensory modality for example appearance,
odor, flavor, texture...

MFA can be used for each modality (to get a consensus map by
modality). HMFA (Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis) can
be used to get a global consensus map.

More time needed by subject

May be easier for the subject to have a more analytical approach

May be closer to the profiling results

Depends on you product category!
 The sorted Napping®
The subjects are asked to provide a map but they have the
possibility to group them according to their similarity.
They are asked to describe the group.

Another happy medium between time and information gathered.
 The structure of the collected data set
Each subject gives 2 coordinates and the group allocation by product.

Sorting Task

Napping
X Y Gr X Y Gr X Y Gr

Xj Yj Gj
Time to practice!
 Practice
You will have to do two tests:

 A Sorted Napping with categorization on 11 Gingerbreads

 A Sorting with categorization on 10 Apple Juices

 Practice: Sorted Napping
You will have to position and sort 11 samples.
Please position the different products on the rectangular map. The closer two products are, the more similar
they seem to be. Conversely, two products are distant if you perceive much difference between them.
You must assess the resemblances or the differences between these products according to your own
criteria.

In order to position the products, please click on the product code which is displayed in the right part and
drag it towards its position on the map. You can move it later by clicking on it and dragging it towards a
new position.

To allocate a sample into a group:

- If you drop the sample on a free area, a new group is created, except if the maximum number of groups
has been reached. In this case the sample is allocated to the closest group.
- If you drop the sample on another one, it will be allocated to the same group.
You may also click on a sample with the right button of the mouse in order to make appear the contextual
menu and define the group allocation.

To cancel the group allocation of a sample: you may click on the sample and drag it back to the start right
area, or allocate it to another group. You may also click with the right button and select Reset group in
the contextual menu.

To comment a group: please click on '>>' button.

 Practice: Sorting
You will have to sort 10 samples.
Please group the different products according to their resemblances. You must put two products in the same
group if they are similar. You must assess the resemblances or the differences between these products
according to your own criteria.

To allocate a sample into a group, please click on the product code which is displayed in the right part and
drag it towards its position on the map.
- If you drop the sample on a free area, a new group is created, except if the maximum number of groups
has been reached. In this case the sample is allocated to the closest group.
- If you drop the sample on another one, it will be allocated to the same group.
You may also click on a sample with the right button of the mouse in order to make appear the contextual
menu and define the group allocation.

To cancel the group allocation of a sample: you may click on the sample and drag it back to the start right
area, or allocate it to another group. You may also click with the right button and select Reset group in
the contextual menu.

To change the group allocation of a product: you may click on the sample and move it on a sample of the
desired group. The sample will be then allocated to this group. You may also click on the sample with
the right button of the mouse to make appear the contextual menu and change the group allocation.

To comment a group: when you are happy with the groups presented, click on the >> button
to comment the different groups.
 Questions

Did you find the task easy?

Did you remember the products’ characteristics easily?
Were you happy with your work?
Did you find easily when to stop separating the products?
Any comment about the number of products?

Any comment about the tasks?

Statistics break
What you have tested (Napping)

729 803
087
056

519 445
161

982 624
340 266
Craft biscuit factory Organic
 Use of the text file in R (example)
Example with the function fasnt (extract)
(do not forget to load the SensoMineR library first!)

Script to be used:
 What you have tested (Sorting)

699
109 863 994
453

158 535 371

240
076
Local Handwork Organic
 Use of the text file in R (example)
Example with the function fast (extract)
(do not forget to load the SensoMineR library first!)

Script to be used:
Data used in this presentation
Fizz Users
The tested sessions will be downloadable from
our Web Site.

All participants
To use the results in R, the exported text files
from Fizz will also be accessible on our Web
site (in the Sensometrics News).

Contact us for any question!

Thank you!