See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273968011

Temporal Drivers of Liking

Poster · August 2013

CITATIONS READS

4 412

4 authors:

A. Thomas Michel Visalli

SensoStat Center for Taste and Feeding Behaviour
27 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS 77 PUBLICATIONS 1,047 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sylvie Cordelle Pascal Schlich

Center for Taste and Feeding Behaviour French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE)
29 PUBLICATIONS 1,190 CITATIONS 301 PUBLICATIONS 7,124 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by A. Thomas on 13 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TEMPORAL DRIVERS OF LIKING
Arnaud Thomas1,2,3, Michel Visalli1,2,3, Sylvie Cordelle1,2,3, Pascal Schlich1,2,3
INRA, UMR1324 CSGA, Dijon, France
1

2 Université de Bourgogne, UMR CSGA, Dijon, France

3 CNRS, UMR6265 CSGA, Dijon, France

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES

When does a liking score is decided while eating a product? Is it originated from the first sensation or from the last sensation perceived? Is it evolving along food consumption?
Replacing attributes in Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS) by the categories of a usual ordinal liking scale makes it possible to monitor liking changes while eating a product
(Sudre et al., FQP, 2012). A 1st objective is to assess whether product discrimination is improved and/or modified using such a temporal liking evaluation compared to a classical
one. A 2nd objective is to better understand when the liking score decision is taken. The last objective is to find out what sensory attributes drive liking and when they do it.

MATERIAL & METHODS

SUBJECTS DATA ACQUISITION
68 French consumers of flavored fresh cheese (19-66 years old)
64 did the third session (TDS) and 54 the fourth session
Subject Choice
PRODUCTS 1st Choice 2nd Choice x Choice…
I extremely I extremely I extremely I extremely
6 different French commercial flavored fresh cheeses dislike like dislike
(box highlight disappears at the next click or after 3 s)
like

PROCEDURE
1st session screen 2nd session screen
4 lab sessions (once a week) with the TimeSens© software
• The “Mouthing” button starts a timer
allowing times of liking scoring change to
1st Session : a classical liking test of the 6 products using a 9-points hedonic
be recorded
scale labeled from “I extremely dislike” to “I extremely like”
• The “Swallowing” button records the time
2nd Session : a temporal liking test of the same products using the same scale. at which the subject swallowed the
However, liking score on the scale disappears after 3 seconds to stimulate the product
subject to re-score the product until the perception ends • In the 2nd or 3rd sessions the liking score or
3rd Session : Temporal Dominance of Sensations of the same products, the attribute picked is switched off after 3
including 8 attributes, no intensity scoring and no training seconds
4th Session : same as first session, but with the liking scale appearing on screen • The screen of the 4th session was the one
one minute after having invited the subject to test the product of session 1 with the scale appearing 1 min
3rd session screen
after the beginning of the product test

RESULTS
CLASSICAL VERSUS TEMPORAL LIKING TEMPORAL DOMINANCE OF SENSATIONS
7
Session 1 Session 2 Session 4
a P1
• Temporal liking is more
a
ab
P4
discriminative than classical P1 P2
6.5 a ab P2
ab
6
b bc
P5
P3 • Waiting 1 min for asking
P6
5.5
bc
c classical liking would result in a
cd cd d
5
c
cd loss of discrimination
d
Dominance rate (%)
Dominance rate (%)

4.5
d d
• Grand mean of liking scores
4 increases with time of notation
3.5 • Product means rankings are
3 different among the 3 liking
Classical Liking Temporal Last Liking Score Liking Score After 1 min

F Value = 9.52 F Value = 13.69 F Value = 7.62

sessions, specifically for the 3
Grand Mean = 4.88 Grand Mean = 5.08 Grand mean = 5.32 preferred products
Time standardized from 0 to 1

NOTATION TIME (S) Time standardized from 0 to 1 Time standardized from 0 to 1

Last Temporal • Classical liking is given before P3 P4

Liking Score Time Swallowing Time
Liking Score Time
(1st session) (2nd session)
(2nd session) swallowing (t=-4.76, p<0.001),
P1 17.6 26.1 38.5
probably too early regarding
P2 19.4 29.6 40.8
P3 16.3 23.5 36.7
flavor perception…
Dominance rate (%)

Dominance rate (%)

P4 18.1 22.5 32.4 • Waiting 1 minute in session 4

P5
P6
16.3
14.5
22.2
23.3
34.8
34.3
was probably too much given
Mean 17.0 24.5 36.3 the average of 36.3 in session 2

RELATING LIKING CHANGES TO ATTRIBUTE DOMINANCES

7 7
P2 P6
n=24 n=19 Time standardized from 0 to 1 Time standardized from 0 to 1
6 n=36 6
n=52 n=15 n=42 n=15
Liking While

Liking
Dominant
Liking While
Dominant

n=21 Mean n=24

5 5 n=8 n=29
n=38
4 4
n=38 n=10
n=52 Liking
P5 P6
n=18 Mean
3 3

Average of the n individual temporal liking scores while the attribute was dominant (LWD) in the product and its 95% confidence interval
Dominance rate (%)

Dominance rate (%)

TDS-band plot, p-value:0.1, Plained colors rectangles: significant attributes. White rectangles: no significant attribute. Time standardized from 0 to 1

1.4 1.4
Temporal minus

Temporal minus
Classical Liking
Classical Liking

0.7 0.7

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.7 -0.7 Time standardized from 0 to 1 Time standardized from 0 to 1
Time (standardized from 0 to 1) Time (standardized from 0 to 1)
The red curve is the average of individual differences between Temporal and Classical Liking (95% confidence interval in grey)

A Temporal Driver of Liking (TDL) is an attribute with a LWD score significantly The products are clearly discriminated by their temporal profiles. A salty or creamy
different from the average liking score of the product. Garlic is a positive TDL in P2, start followed by a garlic finish characterizes the best products, whereas a
whereas Salty is a negative TDL. Cooked Herbs, which dominated the perception of dominance of cooked herbs flavor or a pepper finish characterizes the worst.
P6, is responsible for its poor and continuously decreasing liking score. Besides, TDS seems feasible and useful with untrained consumers !

CONCLUSION : PROMISING FIRST DATA ON A NEW TECHNIQUE (TDL) BASED ON THE ABILITY OF CONSUMERS TO RECORD LIKING CHANGES AND TO DO TDS
View publication stats