Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a

conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the
flavour of fruit dairy products
Julien Delarue*, Jean-Marc Sieffermann
Laboratoire de Perception Sensorielle et Sensométrie, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Industries Agricoles et Alimentaires,
1 Avenue des Olympiades, 91744 Massy Cedex, France

Received 15 June 2002; received in revised form 2 January 2003; accepted 7 June 2003

Abstract
Flash profile is a quick sensory profiling technique designed to meet industrial needs. It is based on the combination of free choice
profiling and a comparative evaluation of the whole product set. This study aimed at comparing Flash profile with conventional
profiling. This has been done with two product spaces: strawberry blended yoghurts and apricot ‘‘fromages frais’’, both from the
French market. Multidimensional data treatment such as Generalised Procrustes Analysis and Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA)
allowed us to assess the correspondence between the sensory maps obtained with both methods. In the case of strawberry yoghurts,
very similar results were obtained with the two methods. On the other hand the sensory positioning of the apricot fresh cheeses
somewhat differed between the methods. For both product sets, Flash profile was slightly more discriminating than the conven-
tional profile. Advantages and limits of Flash profile are discussed.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Descriptive analysis; Procrustes; Canonical variate analysis; Method comparison

1. Introduction process ideally aims at providing a subject-independent

Sensory profiling methods are used in the industry to
draw up the sensory ID of a set of products. This can be
done, for example, to investigate the sensory properties
of a range of existing products from a given market or
to assess the sensory impact of a new formulation, a
change of fabrication process or packaging. More gen-
erally speaking, sensory profiling is increasingly viewed
as a way to explain and possibly anticipate consumer
preferences. In this respect, the primary purpose of sen-
sory profiling is implicitly to describe and quantify
inter-product sensory differences. Carrying out a sen-
sory profile therefore aims at positioning the products in
a multivariate sensory space defined by a relevant com-
bination of sensory attributes.
Contrary to an evaluation performed by a single
expert (e.g. an oenologist or a perfumer), the profiling
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33-1-6993-5010; fax: +33-1-6993-
5174.
E-mail address: delarue@ensia.inra.fr (J. Delarue).
0950-3293/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00085-5
description, free of hedonic judgments. Quantification is
performed on descriptive attributes that are clearly
identified. Since human subjects are not equally sensi-
tive to sensory stimuli nor equally discriminant regard-
ing the attributes, a panel of judges is used in order to
stabilise the generated description.
Since the first developments of sensory profiling
methods in the 1950s, sensory scientists from academia
and the food and the flavour industry people have
developed variations of the original techniques.
Recently, Sieffermann (2000, 2002) suggested to com-
bine free choice profiling with a comparative evaluation
of the product set in a technique named Flash profile.
The goal of our experiment was to compare Flash pro-
file with a well-proven conventional profiling method.
Flash profile has been previously run to describe a set of
red fruit jams and proved to be satisfactory as com-
pared to conventional profile (Dairou & Sieffermann,
2002) which makes it a potentially useful tool for rapid
market analyses. However, in that study the descriptive
task was quite easy to achieve due to large differences
384 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392
between the products. The authors therefore pointed
out that it would be necessary to compare the two
approaches with more similar products. In the present
study, we chose to work with two product spaces that
would be similar to those encountered in industry, that
is to say branded products from the French market that
belong strictly to the same family of products (i.e. direct
competitors’), and which were thus expected to be very
similar. The dairy product sector is amongst the most
competitive in the French food industry, providing us
with many eligible types of products. We came to the
choice of two product spaces: strawberry blended fruit
yoghurts on one hand and apricot ‘‘fromages frais’’ (fresh
cheeses) on the other hand. In addition, we decided to
restrict the evaluation to the description of flavour. We
used two distinct panels that were respectively dedicated
to the conventional profile and to the Flash profile.
The comparison between the methods will be based
on the following criteria:
1. Degree of similarity between the sensory spaces.
In other words: is the relative product position-
ing identical from one method to the other?
Consequently, the discriminating power of each
panel will also be investigated.
2. Richness of the semantic information yielded in
both cases and correspondence of the descriptive
components.
3. Practical aspects of the techniques. These aspects
directly result from the methodological choices
and are therefore discussed in the introduction
below.
1.1. Presentation of the profile methods
1.1.1. Conventional profile
Traditionally, performing a sensory profile includes
the following key steps:
1. Development of a common language for the
description of the studied products. The con-
stitution of a unique list of attributes is achieved
by consensus as a group process.
2. Training of the judges for the evaluation of the
attributes. This includes flavour identification and
quantification (intensity measurement). In order
to facilitate this step and to increase the group
performances, each attribute comes with a defini-
tion and physical references can be provided.
3. Evaluation itself is performed individually,
usually in a monadic sequential way and it the-
oretically comprises several repetitions as for any
instrumental or sensory measurement.
Various procedures based on this scheme have been
proposed. Amongst the most widely used are the QDA1
(Stone, Sidel, Oliver, Woosley & Singleton, 1974), the
Quantitative Flavor Profiling (Stampanoni, 1993) and
the SpectrumTM method (Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr,
1999).
The time necessary to carry out such an analysis may
vary widely and depends in the first place on the objec-
tives of the study in terms of precision and sensitivity. It
also depends on the task difficulty, which is conditioned
by the product space (products may be well distin-
guishable or very confusable) and by the sensory fields
under investigation. It is indeed usually easier to
describe texture differences than aroma differences for
which our concepts are fuzzier. In any cases, the first
two steps (language development and training) are the
most time consuming. They may last from few weeks to
several months.
1.1.2. Limitations of the conventional approach
A weakness inherent in regular descriptive analysis
is related to the use of attributes that are common to
all the judges. Indeed, the ability of subjects to commu-
nicate their sensory perceptions on the same vocabulary
bases is sometimes doubtful, even after thorough train-
ing. It is well-known for example that a single stimulus
can be perceived quantitatively and qualitatively
different from one subject to the other, especially when
chemical senses are involved (Lawless, 1999). Con-
sequently, the forced use of a common language may in
the worst case result in the situation where a given
attribute actually stands for differing individual con-
cepts. Alternatively one attribute may represent the lowest
common denominator for all the judges, impoverishing
greatly the sensory information.
Other limitations come from the use of these tech-
niques in the industrial environment. First, it is not
always possible for companies’ sensory analysts to set
up as many panels as there are kinds of products to
analyse. Second, the competitive environment often
means that new competitors come out on the market
and that recipes are subject to modifications. It is
then necessary to adapt the vocabulary to the pro-
duct space as it changes. Eventually and maybe most
important, running a conventional profile is time-
consuming and for this only reason, sensory eval-
uation is often dropped out when results are needed
urgently.
1.2. Flash profile
Flash profile was initially developed as a flexible
method that aims at providing a quick access to the
relative sensory positioning of a set of products. In
order to save time, the phases of familiarisation with the
product space, attribute generation and rating have
been integrated into a single step. Several methodologi-
cal choices made it possible:
 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392
1. The main specificity of Flash profile is the com-
parative procedure of evaluation of the whole
product set. Judges simply rank the products
(with ties allowed) attribute per attribute. This
forces them to focus on the perceived differences
and to solely use discriminant attributes. There is
consequently no longer need for a step of famil-
iarisation with the product set because the
panellists have a simultaneous access to all the
samples and their differences.
2. Second, Flash profile is based on the use of Free
Choice Profiling (Williams & Langron, 1984)
that allows judges to use their own list of attri-
butes. This frees us from the time-consuming
constraints related to the seeking of the con-
sensus and concept alignment (O’Mahony, 1991).
This therefore reduces the need for a trained
panel.
3. Finally, sensory evaluation experts—not neces-
sarily product experts—are selected to participate
in the panel. By sensory evaluation experts, we
mean subjects who have previously participated
in several descriptive evaluation tasks and who
are able to understand panel leader’s instructions
and generate discriminant and non-hedonic
attributes. This way, we can benefit from the
judges’ experience in communicating their per-
ceptions quantitatively. These judges do not need
to be trained on a specific product set. In this
respect, the selection of judges can be compared
to that in the QFP procedure, in which the judges
who are trained before participation in the test
protocol actually become sensory experts
(Stampanoni, 1993).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Samples
This study was split into two experiments respectively
conducted with two product spaces: strawberry blended
fruit yoghurts on one hand and apricot fresh cheeses on
the other hand. This was done to test the two profiling
methods with more than one kind of product. Fresh
dairy products were chosen because their short shelf-life
made them good clients for a rapid descriptive method.
Besides, fruit yoghurts and fresh cheeses are amongst
the largest sales of fresh food on the French market.
In experiment A, six strawberry yoghurts from the
French market were evaluated, including two yoghurts
(YOG1a and YOG1b) sold under the same brand but
made in different plants. In experiment B, five apricot
fromages frais from the French market were analysed.
Fromage frais is a type of quarg and will be denoted
here as fresh cheese.
385
All the samples respectively belonged to the same
fabrication lot for the totality of the experiments. Both
panels (conventional and Flash profile) therefore eval-
uated strictly the same products. Before each evaluation
session, samples were transferred into blank plastic
containers (125 ml), coded and stored at 5  C prior to
the beginning of the session.
2.2. Panels
2.2.1. Conventional profile
The panel dedicated to the conventional profiling
method pre-existed the present study and was composed
of 10 judges in the case of the strawberry yoghurt
experiment and nine of them participated in the apricot
fresh cheese experiment. These judges had been exten-
sively trained for 6 months to 1.5 years. They received
between 25 and 80 h of training (depending on indivi-
duals) to the evaluation of fruit flavour in blended fruit
yoghurts. They were especially well trained in the eval-
uation of strawberry aroma and slightly less for the
apricot aroma. Since they were not specifically trained
to evaluate the flavour of fresh cheeses, three additional
sessions have been devoted to an updating of the attri-
bute list and to further training with this product space.
2.2.2. Flash profile
The panel dedicated to the Flash profile comprised
nine judges for the strawberry yoghurt experiment and
10 judges for the apricot fresh cheese experiment. Eight
judges were common to both experiments. These judges
were all experienced in sensory evaluation and were
selected for their motivation and for their general apti-
tude to understand and adapt to descriptive analysis
tasks. They were not specifically trained to the eval-
uation of strawberry or apricot aroma, yet they had
participated in the descriptive evaluation of fruit
yoghurts and fresh cheeses in the past. Care was taken,
however, that they had not been involved in the eval-
uation of such products during the few months preced-
ing the present study.
2.3. Sensory procedures
The sensory procedures were identical for both
experiments A and B. The evaluation was restricted to
the evaluation of flavour. For both experiments, tasting
sessions were conducted on the same days with the two
panels. In both cases, the evaluations took place in
standardised individual booths.
The panel of the conventional profile used the con-
sensual attributes routinely employed for 1 year. In the
case of the apricot fresh cheese experiment, some attri-
butes were discussed within the group and redefined
during the additional training sessions. Two replica-
tions of the evaluation sessions were performed for the
386 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392
conventional profile. Judges evaluated the samples in a
monadic sequential way using the 11-point intensity
scale ranging from 0 (attribute not perceived) to 10
(very intense).
Flash profile consisted of four sessions. During the
first session, judges were asked to individually generate
attributes, which should be sufficiently discriminant to
allow a ranking of the samples. All the generated attri-
butes were then pooled by the experimenter and, at the
beginning of session 2, the judges were asked to take a
moment to read the panel’s list and to update their own
list if desired. Judges then proceeded to the evaluation
itself on a ranking mode. Ties were allowed and judges
could re-taste the samples as much as they liked. Ses-
sions 3 and 4 were replicates of the evaluation step.
Note that the judges did not necessarily participate in
the tasting sessions at the same time. The only restric-
tion for the panel was to wait until everybody had
completed the first session before proceeding to the sec-
ond. This was to ensure that everybody’s attributes were
communicated to the rest of the panel.
Evaluation sessions lasted approximately 30–40 min
for the conventional profile whereas evaluation took
longer for Flash profile (40–75 min). In the latter case,
pauses were allowed between the evaluations of two
attributes when desired by the judges.
2.4. Data analysis
The data from the two types of profiles (respectively
rating scores and ranks) were collected on Microsoft
Excel1 spreadsheets. Judge repeatability was first tested
by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and by check-
ing for each judge, the inter-session correlation coeffi-
cients attribute per attribute. Poorly performing judges
were excluded from the data set. This was necessary
because judges’ averaged data were used for further
analyses. After this step and for experiment A, nine
judges were retained for the conventional profile and six
judges for the Flash profile. For experiment B, eight
judges were retained for the conventional profile and
seven judges for the Flash profile. Besides, the attribute
‘‘rancid’’ was withdrawn from the data of the conven-
tional profile for its lack of repeatability.
As it is usually done, we first analysed the average
data from the conventional profile by PCA. Generalised
procrustes analysis (GPA) (Gower, 1975) was applied to
the data from Flash profile to assess the consensus
between assessors’ sensory maps. It was also used to
compare the results of the two profiling methods. In
addition to this, canonical variate analysis (CVA) was
used in order to determine the quality of product dis-
crimination. This was based on the calculation of the F
statistic (Rao’s approximation), on inter-group Mala-
hanobis distances and on the percentage of correct re-
attribution to the various groups of products. A
measure of the similarity between the sensory spaces of
the two panels was given by the RV coefficient (Schlich,
1996). It was computed on the table of multivariate
components from the GPA run on each panel’s data set.
Regarding the description of the products, PCA plots
of the attributes on the circle of correlations was used to
describe inter-product differences when they exist.
All multidimensional data treatments were performed
using the XLSTAT1 add-in for Microsoft Excel1
(Fahmy, 2000), with the exception of GPA that was
performed on Statistical Analysis System Institute
(SAS1, 1999) with the macro written by Schlich (1989).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Experiment A: strawberry yoghurts
3.1.1. Comparison of sensory maps
The PCA plots of the data from the two panels (Fig. 1)
show similar structures. In both cases, YOG1a and
YOG1b are opposed to other products on the first axis
and axis 2 separates YOG3 and YOG4. When limiting
the comparison to the first two principal components,
products YOG2 and YOG3 that are more centrally
located, appear to be slightly differently positioned
depending on the profile type. However, not all the
sensory information is taken into account on this plot.
Another way to assess the correspondence between the
two data sets is to apply a procrustean analysis to the
two consensus solutions obtained by applying GPA
respectively to the conventional profile data and to the
Flash profile data. In this case, data from the conven-
tional profile are also treated like free choice profiling
data (simulated FCP). That is, as if judges used their
own attributes. The result of this two-level Procrustes
analysis is plotted as a PCA on Fig. 2. It can be seen in
this figure, that the Flash profile data perfectly matches
the conventional profile data. This is confirmed by the
normalised RV (NRV) coefficient between the two panel
averaged data sets. The higher this coefficient, the more
similar the two panel configurations. The NRV coeffi-
cient was 3.07 (P < 0.01).
In order to characterise this correspondence, a GPA
was also performed on the overall data set—that is the
productattribute (judge) matrix—and a CVA was run
with the resulting matrix of sample coordinates on all
principal components. Twelve predicted groups were
defined as the 12 combinations: productprofile type.
As expected from Fig. 2, the distance matrix showed
that all the products were different pairwise (P < 0.01)
with the exception of the pairs of identical products
evaluated by differing profile methods (Table 1).
Besides, the software correctly reattributed 100% of the
observations to the six groups of products indepen-
dently from the type of profile. This confirmed that the
 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392 387

Fig. 1. Experiment A—evaluation of strawberry yoghurts: comparison between the 1 and 2 factorial maps from the PCA of the conventional profile
averaged data (left hand side) and from the GPA of the Flash profile data (right hand side).

profiling method made no difference regarding the

structure of the product space as was observed by
Dairou and Sieffermann (2002).

3.1.2. Discriminating power

Fig. 2. Experiment A—evaluation of strawberry yoghurts: plot of the
Procrustes analysis performed on the consensus data from the two
panels respectively dedicated to conventional profile (filled symbols)
and to Flash profile (open symbols).
The F-approximation computed with the CVA gives
an indication of the discriminating power of the corre-
sponding panel. The higher the F, the better the dis-
crimination. The obtained F was very significant in both
cases, indicating that both panels were very dis-
criminant. Remarkably, products YOG1a and YOG1b
that were expected to be very similar, were dis-
criminated by both panels. Nevertheless, a markedly
lower F was obtained for the conventional profile
(F40, 182=4.03, P < 0.0001) than for the Flash profile
(F25, 98=40.32, P < 0.0001). However, we arrive at
F25, 165=52.73 (P < 0.0001) when a GPA is applied to
the conventional profile data. Therefore it seems that a
panel’s discriminating power is decreased when judges
are forced to use the same attributes. This result agrees
with the criticisms levelled at this type of procedure.

Table 1 3.1.3. Semantic comparison

Malahanobis’s square distances between the products (strawberry The attributes used by the two panels are summed up
yoghurts) evaluated either by conventional profile or by Flash profile in Table 2. Eight attributes were used for the conven-
Products (DMalahanobis)2 Associated F p tional profile. Two of them were related to taste and six
described the aroma. In the case of Flash profile, judges
YOG1aconv.–YOG1aflash 3.28 1.64 0.2453
YOG1bconv.–YOG1bflash 1.92 0.96 0.4910
used between five and eight attributes. That is, for the
YOG2conv.–YOG2flash 2.29 1.14 0.4059 panel, a total of 19 attributes kept for data analysis. It
YOG3conv.–YOG3flash 1.20 0.60 0.7039 can be seen that judges belonging to the Flash profile
YOG4conv.–YOG4flash 1.62 0.81 0.5730 panel used some very different words such as cereal,
YOG5conv.–YOG5flash 1.44 0.72 0.6276 alcohol, floral and cheese to describe the aroma.
Distances were calculated after GPA was applied on the whole data Besides, all the attributes from the conventional profile
set. have also been used by the judges who participated in
388 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392

Table 2 ciated to the wild strawberry note. Product YOG2 that

Flavour attributes used for the evaluation of the strawberry yoghurts was centrally positioned on map 12 could be said to be
with both methods of profile
more balanced for these attributes. It is better repre-
Flash profile Number of occurrences Conventional sented on the third axis, on which it is related to the jam
in Flash profile profile note, but is less vanilla-like than YOG4 and YOG5.
Sour 4 Sour
The PCA of the Flash profile data naturally involves a
Bitter to sweet 1 larger number of attributes, which renders the descrip-
Astringent 1 tion less straightforward. Nevertheless, it can be seen
Sweet (doux) 2 that products YOG1a and YOG1b are characterised by
Sweet (sucré) 4 Sweet (sucré) a set of attributes related to sourness and green aroma
Alcohol 3
Cereal 2
notes. They are opposed on the first principal compo-
Jam 3 Jam nent to the other products (specially YOG3, YOG4 and
Creamy 4 Creamy YOG5) by attributes sweet, cream, vanilla and jam.
Creamy/vanilla 1 Besides, YOG3—and YOG5 to a lesser extent—have
Cooked 1 been rated more ‘‘cereal’’ by two judges. On the other
Wild strawberry 2 Wild strawberry
Floral 2
hand, there is no consensus between the two judges who
Strawberry 1 used the attribute ‘‘wild strawberry’’, neither is there a
Typical to atypical 1 consensus between the three judges who used the attri-
strawberry bute ‘‘alcohol’’.
Cheese 1 As can be seen, many of the same descriptive char-
Vanilla 1 Vanilla
Green 3 Green
acteristics were obtained with both methods. However,
Green to vanilla 1 the wild strawberry note of products YOG1 (a and b)
0 Overall aroma that was spotted with the conventional profile no longer
intensity appears with the Flash profile. In return, new informa-
tion is brought to light by the Flash profile with the use
of the attribute ‘‘cereal’’. The description provided by
the Flash profile with the notable exception of the the Flash profile is thus satisfactory as compared to
attribute ‘‘overall aroma intensity’’. This is typically the conventional profile. The same conclusions can indeed
case of an attribute of interest for the experimenter, be drawn independently from both profile outputs.
which is however not spontaneously used by the judges.
This may be explained either by the fact that it is not 3.2. Experiment B: apricot fresh cheeses
intuitive enough or because there are no differences
among the products for this particular attribute. That is 3.2.1. Comparison of sensory maps
to say, the attribute is not discriminating enough Fig. 3 represents the sensory maps obtained with both
towards the evaluated product space. The latter panels. Contrary to what was observed in the case of
hypothesis is plausible since a CVA applied to the con- strawberry yoghurts, the two PCA plots are markedly
ventional profile data indicates a poor correlation of the different. The first two dimensions explained 78% of the
variable ‘‘overall aroma intensity’’ with the first dis- total variance in the case of conventional profile
criminant axes (the correlation coefficient is 0.31 with whereas they explained up to 89% of the total variance
axis 1 and 0.12 with axis 2). This agrees with the in the case of Flash profile. Particularly, it can be seen
desire, within the frame of Flash profile, to use only that FCH2 and FCH3 are not identically positioned.
discriminating attributes. Although axis 2 separates FCH3 from other products
on the PCA of the conventional profile, axis 2 isolates
3.1.4. Description of the products the product FCH2 on the PCA of the Flash profile. This
As often with Free Choice Profiling techniques, the is somewhat balanced by the third axis of both PCA
loading plots yield rather complex graphs gathering all (Fig. 3B). As it was done for experiment A, a two-level
individual attributes. These figures as well as the loading Procrustes analysis was used to facilitate the comparison.
plots for the conventional profile are thus not presented The consensus configuration of each panel was first com-
here. However, main descriptive facts are reported in puted by GPA and subsequently compared by the way of
the following. The PCA of the conventional profile data a second Procrustes analysis. The results are plotted as a
indicates that products YOG1a and YOG1b are PCA on Fig. 4. This figure shows that a good correspon-
strongly characterised by green and sour notes that dence between the two consensus configurations can be
oppose them to products YOG3, YOG4 and YOG5. obtained. It is however not as good as it was for experi-
These latter products were rated sweeter, with jam, ment A as indicated by the lower percentage of explained
vanilla and creamy notes. Products YOG1a and variance with the first two dimensions (77.5% to be
YOG1b had a stronger overall aroma that was asso- compared to the 78 and 89% for the PCA of the two
 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392 389

Fig. 3. Experiment B—evaluation of apricot fresh cheeses: comparison between the 12 (A) and 23 (B) factorial maps from the PCA of the
conventional profile averaged data (left hand side) and from the GPA of the Flash profile data (right hand side).

panels, respectively). Furthermore, it can be seen on the
13 factorial map (Fig. 4B) that products FCH4 and
FCH5 are not well paired. The NRV coefficient between
the two panel averaged data was 1.49 (NS), which
reflected the lower degree of similarity.
As was done for experiment A, a GPA followed by
CVA was applied to the overall productattribute (judge)
matrix that gathered the data from the two panels. This
was done to characterise the correspondence between the
two panels. Table 3 shows that three products were well
paired whereas two of them (FCH4 and FCH5) were dis-
tinctly positioned, depending on the type of profile. This
confirms the graphical interpretation above. Besides, the
CVA indicates that differing products were discriminated
and were correctly reattributed to their corresponding
clusters, regardless of the profile type.
3.2.2. Discriminating power
As before, the F-approximation was computed from
the CVA in order to compare the discriminating power
of each panel. We obtained F40, 100=1.74 (P=0.014) for
the conventional profile and F16, 83=26.96 (P < 0.0001)
for the Flash profile. Products were thus much better
discriminated using the Flash profile. However, apply-
ing a GPA to the conventional profile data prior to the
CVA gives a better discriminating power (F16, 98
=62.38, P < 0.0001) which is higher than the Flash pro-
file one. It is clearer than for the strawberry yoghurt
experiment, that the discriminating power of the con-
ventional profile panel was potentially higher than it first
appeared. Once again, this may be attributed to the
forced use of consensual attributes and particularly to
the following data treatment, which implicitly considers
that these common attributes refer to the same under-
lying sensory concepts for all panel members. The larger
discrepancy observed here is probably due to the fact
that judges from the conventional profile panel were less
trained to the evaluation of apricot fresh cheeses than
they were for strawberry yoghurts. As a conclusion, the
use of a free choice profiling method seems to be more
indicated when the panel has not been, or cannot be,
trained enough to align concepts among the judges.
390 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392

Table 4
Flavour attributes used for the evaluation of the apricot fresh cheeses
with both methods of profile

Flash profile Number of occurrences Conventional

in Flash profile profile

Sour 1 Sour
Astringent 1
Sweet (sucré) 5 Sweet (sucré)
Fruity apricot 1
Artificial 2
Banana 1
Artificial candy 1
Caramel 2
0 Candy—
confectionery
0 Jam
Creamy 2 Creamy
Cooked 1
Spicy—cinnamon 1
Floral 4
Cheese 1
Fresh cheese to 2
crème fraıˆche
Fruity 1
Liquor 1
Apricot skin 2
0 Overall aroma
intensity

(jam and overall aroma intensity) were not used for the
Flash profile. A CVA applied to conventional profile
data indicates that the attribute ‘jam’ was poorly dis-
criminating (the correlation coefficient with the first
discriminant axis is 0.15 and 0.12 with the second axis).
Fig. 4. Experiment B—evaluation of apricot fresh cheeses: plot of the This might be an explanation for the fact that it was not
12 (A) and 13 (B) factorial maps derived from the Procrustes ana- used by the judges in the case of Flash profile. On the
lysis performed on the consensus data from the two panels respectively
dedicated to conventional profile (filled symbols) and to Flash profile
other hand, and contrary to what was found with the
(open symbols). strawberry yoghurts, the attribute ‘overall aroma inten-
sity’ was highly discriminating (the correlation coeffi-
cient with axis 1 of CVA is 0.65 and 0.39 with axis 2).
Table 3
Malahanobis’s square distances between the products (apricot fresh We could therefore hypothesise that this attribute was
cheeses) evaluated either by conventional profile or by Flash profile not intuitive enough to be used by judges who partici-
pated in the Flash profile. It is also possible that ‘overall
Products (DMalahanobis)2 Associated F p
aroma intensity’, which is a fairly synthetic concept, was
FCH1conv.–FCH1flash 1.14 0.82 0.5435 systematically broken down into more accurate attri-
FCH2conv.–FCH2flash 2.89 2.08 0.1590 butes. Generally speaking, the vocabulary employed by
FCH3conv.–FCH3flash 3.15 2.26 0.1344
the Flash profile panel was richer than the standardised
FCH4conv.–FCH4flash 6.84 4.91 0.0188
FCH5conv.–FCH5flash 16.62 11.94 0.0008 list of attributes from the conventional profile as can be
seen from Table 4 and the main sensory concepts from
Distances were calculated after GPA was applied on the whole data the conventional profile were also yielded by the Flash
set.
profile.

3.2.3. Semantic comparison 3.2.4. Description of the products

Nine attributes were used for the conventional profile.
Two of them were related to taste and eight described the
aroma. In the case of Flash profile, judges used between
four and nine attributes. That is, for the panel, a total of
18 attributes kept for data analysis. It can be seen from
Table 4 that two attributes from the conventional profile
The PCA of the conventional profile indicates that
product FCH3 is separated from other products along a
fruity-apricot and jam dimension. Product FCH4
appears to be sweeter and more cheesy than other pro-
ducts. It is still close to product FCH2 that has a
stronger creamy note. These two latter products have a
 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392
lower overall intensity than the rest of the products. On
the other hand, product FCH1 is characterised by floral
and candy notes and by its sourness. Product FCH5 is
centrally positioned and therefore cannot be easily
characterised.
As was mentioned above, the Flash profile involves a
larger number of differing attributes, which renders the
description more delicate. Still, some general descriptive
trends can be given. The first axis of the PCA is posi-
tively correlated to attributes ‘‘sweet’’ and ‘‘cream’’
(product FCH4) and negatively correlated to attributes
such as ‘‘floral’’, ‘‘apricot peel’’, ‘‘artificial’’ and
‘‘astringent’’ (product FCH1, and FCH3 to a lesser
extent). FCH2 seems to be discriminated from other
products for its fruity note. As observed with the con-
ventional profile, product FCH5 is equally balanced for
most of the attributes and was thus difficult to describe
using this technique.
Obviously, some descriptive elements are common to
both profiles, but the comparison on these bases
remains, once again, awkward and no further conclu-
sion can be drawn.
4. General discussion and conclusion
The use of Flash profile for the evaluation of a set of
strawberry yoghurts allowed a rapid access to their
sensory positioning. It was found to be identical to that
obtained by a conventional method. However, we
observed that the match was not perfect for the second
product space studied (the apricot fresh cheeses). The
reasons for the discrepancy between the results of the
two panels are not clear. It is worth noting that the
interpretation is inherently limited by such a compar-
ison methodology. It is indeed impossible to separate
the sources of variations (i.e. the panel and the profile
type). This holds for all the results presented here. One
way to partly solve this problem would have been to
replicate experiments with several different panels to
increase the number of reproduced profiles and hence to
increase the power of the test. It was unfortunately not
possible to proceed this way within the frame of the
present study. It is hypothesised however that observed
differences are likely to be linked to the differing eval-
uation modes (comparative vs. monadic sequential) that
automatically result in differing contexts of evaluation.
For Flash profile, each product is evaluated by direct
comparison with the rest of the product set whereas for
the conventional profile, the monadic sequential mode
implies that each product is evaluated in comparison
with judges’ representation of the product space, which
is either taught and/or based on judges’ previous
experience. Thus, memory is not involved in the same
way in both cases. Besides, it should be noted that the
set of strawberry yoghurts comprised two products
391
whose flavour contrasted to the rest of the product set
because of their green/vegetal note. This strong sensory
characteristic largely contributed to the configuration of
the sensory maps with both types of profiles. Besides,
when the product space was more homogeneous—as in
the case of the apricot fresh cheese—the two profile
methods resulted in slightly differing positioning.
The second observation made in the present study is
that products were better discriminated by the use of
Flash profile than by the use of conventional profile.
This was observed with the two tested product sets. This
could be linked to the evaluation mode as well. Yet, the
application of GPA to the conventional profile data
showed that the treatment usually applied to the panel’s
averaged data masks inter-subject differences in their
understanding of the attributes and therefore reduces
the panel’s discriminating power. It is our opinion that,
when product positioning and discrimination are of
prime concern, profiling techniques based on the free
choice of attributes are preferable to those involving the
development of consensual attributes. Flash profile
would be specially indicated when the available panel
cannot be trained for a sufficient time.
On the other hand, Flash profile is less adapted to the
description of the products than conventional profiling.
This was expected since Flash profile was not designed
to give an accurate description of the products. How-
ever it is noticeable that we clearly lack tools to evaluate
and compare the quality of semantic descriptions. The
latter point should be addressed in future research.
The main benefit of Flash profile is its rapidity and
ease of use. Each evaluation session may take much
time than it would in conventional profiling. Never-
theless, we found, as shown in a previous study (Dairou
& Sieffermann, 2002), that the total amount of time
necessary to achieve a Flash profile is much lower than
with conventional profiling. It is also less time-intensive
for the experimenter. In addition to this, all sessions can
be carried out individually, on separate days and sepa-
rate locations, providing that all samples are available.
Indeed, the simultaneous evaluation by ranking
obviously implies that all the samples must be available
at the same time. Consequently, no supplementary
sample can be evaluated afterwards without re-profiling
the whole sample set. This may be a strong restriction
on the use of Flash profile depending on material cir-
cumstances. As pointed out by Dairou and Sieffermann
(2002), this methodology cannot be used for product
stability tests or quality control.
In conclusion, we think it would be misleading to
consider Flash profile as a substitute for conventional
profiling, which is certainly the most adapted and accu-
rate profiling technique to date. Furthermore, these two
methods do not fulfil exactly the same objectives. We
rather propose to consider Flash profile as a convenient
sensory mapping tool for conducting preliminary phases
392 J. Delarue, J.-M. Sieffermann / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383–392
of thorough sensory studies. It could be of great help,
for example, in the language development step of a
conventional profile (Moniez, Truchot, & Sieffermann,
2001). One could also use it as a screening tool for
selecting products or factors when designing a larger
experiment. Notice that, technically, Flash profile data
can serve as a sensory base for a preference mapping
study. Besides, Flash profile is fast and flexible, which
makes professional experts such as flavourists or oenolo-
gists affordable as panel members. Likewise, using Flash
profile may be an easy way to rationalize and increase the
value of in-house round table tasting with company peo-
ple. It also gives access to the sensory evaluation of short
shelf life products in the context of experimental design
studies or when a one-shot evaluation is only possible.
Generally speaking, Flash profile could be used whenever
one is interested in getting the relative sensory positioning
of a set of products in a very short time.
References
Dairou, V., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2002). A comparison of 14 jams
characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method,
the Flash Profile. Journal of Food Science, 67, 826–834.
Fahmy, T. (2000). XLSTAT (version 4.4). Paris.
Gower, J. C. (1975). Generalised procrustes analysis. Psychometrika,
40, 33–51.
Lawless, H. T. (1999). Descriptive analysis of complex odors: reality,
model or illusion? Food Quality and Preference, 10, 325–332.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory evaluation
techniques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Moniez, N., Truchot, A., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2001). Sensory char-
acteristics and consumer preferences for surimi sticks (poster). In
The 4th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 22–26 July, Dijon,
France.
O’Mahony, M. (1991). Descriptive analysis and concept alignment.
In H. T. Lawless, & B. P. Klein (Eds.), Sensory science theory
and applications in foods (pp. 223–267). New York: Marcel
Dekker.
SAS (1999). Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute
Inc. .
Schlich, P. (1989). A SAS/IML program for Generalised Procrustes
Analysis. In SAS European Users Group International Conference,
Köln, Germany.
Schlich, P. (1996). Defining and validating assessor compromises
about product distances and attribute correlations. In T. Noes, &
E. Risvik (Eds.), Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science
(pp. 259–306). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Sieffermann, J.-M. (2000). Le profil flash—un outil rapide et innovant
d’évaluation sensorielle descriptive. In AGORAL 2000, XIIèmes
rencontres ‘‘L’innovation: de l’idée au success’’ (pp. 335–340), Mont-
pellier, France.
Sieffermann, J.-M. (2002). Flash profiling. A new method of sensory
descriptive analysis. In AIFST 35th Convention, July 21–24, Sidney,
Australia.
Stampanoni, C. R. (1993). The ‘‘quantitative flavor profiling’’ tech-
nique. Perfumer and Flavorist, 18, 19–24.
Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woosley, A., & Singleton, R. C. (1974).
Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Tech-
nology, 28, 24–34.
Williams, A. A., & Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free-choice pro-
filing for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science
of Food and Agriculture, 35, 558–568.