Comparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of Muffins
Sensory evaluation is essential to understand consumer perception. This study compared three descriptive methods (Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Flash Profile, and Pivot Profile) to characterize muffins formulated with alternative flours (purple corn and amaranth) in comparison to a wheat-based contro...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | inglés |
| Publicado: |
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver en el sistema de origen Ver en el sistema de origen Enlace permanente (DOI o Handle) Enlace permanente (DOI o Handle) |
| Etiquetas: |
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1881508853914271744 |
|---|---|
| author | Silva Paz, Reynaldo Justino Avilés Pérez, Humberto A. Rivera-Ashqui, Thalía A. Apaza Humerez, Carmen Rosa |
| author_browse | Apaza Humerez, Carmen Rosa Avilés Pérez, Humberto A. Rivera-Ashqui, Thalía A. Silva Paz, Reynaldo Justino |
| author_facet | Silva Paz, Reynaldo Justino Avilés Pérez, Humberto A. Rivera-Ashqui, Thalía A. Apaza Humerez, Carmen Rosa |
| author_sort | Silva Paz, Reynaldo Justino |
| collection | Producción científica |
| description | Sensory evaluation is essential to understand consumer perception. This study compared three descriptive methods (Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Flash Profile, and Pivot Profile) to characterize muffins formulated with alternative flours (purple corn and amaranth) in comparison to a wheat-based control. Six formulations (T0-T5) were evaluated: CATA and Pivot Profile were applied with 100 consumers, while Flash Profile was conducted with 15 panelists. Multivariate statistical analyses were used: correspondence analysis for CATA and Pivot, and Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Flash Profile. All three methods showed high discriminative power: CATA explained 94.36% of the variance, identifying three main groups; Flash Profile explained 63.88%, highlighting differences in texture and aroma; and Pivot Profile explained 81.10%, revealing complex interactions among sensory attributes. Sample T1 (100% purple corn) showed a distinctive sensory profile (bitter and dry), while samples T2 to T5 presented intermediate characteristics. The RV coefficient confirmed significant congruence between the methods. CATA effectively identified relevant sensory differences, Pivot Profile generated descriptors in relation to a control sample, and Flash Profile enabled exploratory analysis. The choice of method depends on the study objective, with each approach offering complementary sensory information. |
| format | Article |
| id | oai:cris.upeu.edu.pe:20.500.15037/1371 |
| institution | UPeU |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publishDateRange | 2025 |
| publishDateSort | 2025 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oai:cris.upeu.edu.pe:20.500.15037/13712026-10-30T17:04:36ZComparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of MuffinsSilva Paz, Reynaldo JustinoAvilés Pérez, Humberto A.Rivera-Ashqui, Thalía A.Apaza Humerez, Carmen RosaperceptionSensoryDescriptivePivotCataFlash ProfileSensory evaluation is essential to understand consumer perception. This study compared three descriptive methods (Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Flash Profile, and Pivot Profile) to characterize muffins formulated with alternative flours (purple corn and amaranth) in comparison to a wheat-based control. Six formulations (T0-T5) were evaluated: CATA and Pivot Profile were applied with 100 consumers, while Flash Profile was conducted with 15 panelists. Multivariate statistical analyses were used: correspondence analysis for CATA and Pivot, and Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Flash Profile. All three methods showed high discriminative power: CATA explained 94.36% of the variance, identifying three main groups; Flash Profile explained 63.88%, highlighting differences in texture and aroma; and Pivot Profile explained 81.10%, revealing complex interactions among sensory attributes. Sample T1 (100% purple corn) showed a distinctive sensory profile (bitter and dry), while samples T2 to T5 presented intermediate characteristics. The RV coefficient confirmed significant congruence between the methods. CATA effectively identified relevant sensory differences, Pivot Profile generated descriptors in relation to a control sample, and Flash Profile enabled exploratory analysis. The choice of method depends on the study objective, with each approach offering complementary sensory information.Articlehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40870810https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/16/2898/pdf?version=1755749786https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14162898PMC1238580510.3390/foods14162898https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.15037/137140870810W4413401382enFoods2304-81582025-08-212026-06-13T09:55:51Z2026-06-13T09:55:51Z |
| spellingShingle | perception Sensory Descriptive Pivot Cata Flash Profile Silva Paz, Reynaldo Justino Avilés Pérez, Humberto A. Rivera-Ashqui, Thalía A. Apaza Humerez, Carmen Rosa Comparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of Muffins |
| title | Comparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of Muffins |
| title_full | Comparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of Muffins |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of Muffins |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of Muffins |
| title_short | Comparison of Rapid Descriptive Sensory Methods Applied to Consumers in the Evaluation of Muffins |
| title_sort | comparison of rapid descriptive sensory methods applied to consumers in the evaluation of muffins |
| topic | perception Sensory Descriptive Pivot Cata Flash Profile |
| topic_facet | perception Sensory Descriptive Pivot Cata Flash Profile |
| url | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40870810 https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/16/2898/pdf?version=1755749786 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14162898 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.15037/1371 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT silvapazreynaldojustino comparisonofrapiddescriptivesensorymethodsappliedtoconsumersintheevaluationofmuffins AT avilesperezhumbertoa comparisonofrapiddescriptivesensorymethodsappliedtoconsumersintheevaluationofmuffins AT riveraashquithaliaa comparisonofrapiddescriptivesensorymethodsappliedtoconsumersintheevaluationofmuffins AT apazahumerezcarmenrosa comparisonofrapiddescriptivesensorymethodsappliedtoconsumersintheevaluationofmuffins |