Free comment versus word association test: Methodological insights for sensory analysis

IF 4.9 1区 农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Food Quality and Preference Pub Date : 2025-04-17 DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105555
Méline Vautrin , Eric Teillet , Daniel Ahmad , Christine Urbano , Arnaud Thomas
{"title":"Free comment versus word association test: Methodological insights for sensory analysis","authors":"Méline Vautrin ,&nbsp;Eric Teillet ,&nbsp;Daniel Ahmad ,&nbsp;Christine Urbano ,&nbsp;Arnaud Thomas","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study compares the Free Comment method and the Word Association Test as two consumer-based approaches for the auditory characterization of single-serve coffee machines. A total of 133 consumers evaluated four machine sounds using both methods in an intra-subject design. While both approaches yielded largely similar sensory interpretations and highlighted nearly the same key descriptors, the Word Association Test resulted in clearer product discrimination and identified more significant associations. These findings suggest that, despite their conceptual similarity, the two methods differ in the number and strength of product-term associations they generate. Further research could investigate the extent to which these findings generalize to other sensory modalities, such as smell or taste, where associative and emotional memory processes may influence consumer responses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"130 ","pages":"Article 105555"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329325001302","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compares the Free Comment method and the Word Association Test as two consumer-based approaches for the auditory characterization of single-serve coffee machines. A total of 133 consumers evaluated four machine sounds using both methods in an intra-subject design. While both approaches yielded largely similar sensory interpretations and highlighted nearly the same key descriptors, the Word Association Test resulted in clearer product discrimination and identified more significant associations. These findings suggest that, despite their conceptual similarity, the two methods differ in the number and strength of product-term associations they generate. Further research could investigate the extent to which these findings generalize to other sensory modalities, such as smell or taste, where associative and emotional memory processes may influence consumer responses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自由评论与单词联想测试:感官分析的方法论见解
这项研究比较了自由评论方法和单词联想测试作为两种基于消费者的方法来描述单杯咖啡机的听觉特征。在受试者内部设计中,共有133名消费者使用两种方法评估了四种机器声音。虽然这两种方法产生了很大程度上相似的感官解释,并强调了几乎相同的关键描述符,但单词联想测试导致了更清晰的产品区分,并确定了更重要的关联。这些发现表明,尽管它们在概念上相似,但这两种方法在它们产生的产品术语关联的数量和强度上有所不同。进一步的研究可以调查这些发现在多大程度上推广到其他感官模式,如嗅觉或味觉,在这些感官模式中,联想和情感记忆过程可能会影响消费者的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Food Quality and Preference
Food Quality and Preference 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
15.10%
发文量
263
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.
期刊最新文献
Do hybrid yogurts ease dietary transitions? Multi-method evidence from Brazilian consumers Curious yet disgusted: A mobile eye-tracking investigation of visual attention to insect-based snacks in a buffet setting Editorial Board Thermal taster status: A review of physiological aspects, methodological variables in phenotypical characterisation and relationship with sensory perception and affective response Effects of repeated visual and olfactory exposure to sweet and sour cues on appetite and food liking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1