AN EFFECTIVE HEDONIC ANALYSIS TOOL: WEAK/STRONG POINTS

In 2 separate studies, 6 rice and 6 dry‐cured ham samples were tasted by 2 sets of consumers. The consumers were asked about their hedonic evaluation and invited to comment on the weak and strong points of food samples. The frequencies of quoted terms were analyzed by correspondence analysis (CA). A trained panel carried out the sample profiles. Hedonic scores were linked to objective assessment using the preference mapping (PM). Figures from CA and PM showed similar proximity between samples in both studies. The descriptive vocabulary used by trained assessors and consumers contained both similarities and differences. In the rice study, the trained panel described Basmati with the terms ‘little elastic’, ‘long grain’ and ‘brioche flavor’, while consumers used ‘aromatic’, ‘long grain’, ‘white color’ and ‘good texture’. In the dry‐cured ham study, Iberian and Corsican samples were described by ‘rancid’, ‘blue cheese’, ‘mushroom’, ‘bitter’ and 'sweet’ attributes while consumers only used ‘too fatty’, ‘bad taste’ and 'strange’ terms. Trained assessors stressed the greatest sensory differences while consumers focused on salient popular and unpopular traits. Weak/strong points analysis was efficient to show the level of acceptability by the number of strong points attributed to the samples and the main reasons for acceptability or rejection.