International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

Comparison of free choice proling, direct similarity measurements

and hedonic data for ewes milk cheeses sensory evaluation
P. Ba! rcenas, F.J. Pe! rez Elortondo*, M. Albisu
! y Bromatolog!a, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad del Pa!s Vasco (UPV/EHU), Paseo de la Universidad 7, 01006 Vitoria, Spain
Nutricion
Received 29 August 2001; accepted 30 July 2002

Abstract
The purpose of this work was to compare the sensory characteristics of ewes milk cheeses using several sensory methodologies
(free choice proling (FCP), direct similarity measurements, and hedonic data). For this purpose, visual plot inspection as well as
correlation coefcients among sensory dimensions were considered. Multidimensional maps obtained by means of free choice
proling proved difcult to interpret without any other external source of information in contrast to data obtained by direct
similarity measurement techniques that gave interpretable solutions. Cheese samples showed specic sensory characteristics mainly
based on ripening time and manufacturing procedures. The techniques used in this study revealed great individual variability during
sensory assessment of cheese samples mainly attributable to the absence of assessor training. Multidimensional solutions for the
different correlation techniques are also discussed.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sensory properties; Ewes milk cheeses; Sensory methodologies

1. Introduction
Ewes milk cheeses have a unique taste and avour,
very different from that made from cows milk
(Kalantzopoulos, 1993). Furthermore, these minority
varieties have a strong quality and authenticity image
and their traditional character plays a positive role on
the consumer market (Freitas & Malcata, 2000). For
this reason, and considering a market dominated by
cows milk products, the protection of traditional ewes
milk cheeses is taking on a new signicance (Pe! rez
!
Elortondo, Ba! rcenas, Casas, Salmeron,
& Albisu,
1999b). Several research works have been recently
published on sensory characteristics within this group
of cheeses. A specic sensory lexicon and standard
references have been previously described (Lavanchy
! &
et al., 1999; Ba! rcenas, Pe! rez Elortondo, Salmeron,
Albisu, 1999). Futher studies were also carried out in the
selection of descriptive panels for these types of products
(Ba! rcenas, Pe! rez Elortondo, & Albisu, 2000; Ba! rcenas,
! & Albisu, 2001a). MorePe! rez Elortondo, Salmeron,
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-45-01-30-75; fax: +34-45-13-0756.
E-mail address: knppeelf@vc.ehu.es (F.J.P. Elortondo).

over, several studies have been focused on the effect of

different factors, such as starter culture (Ortigosa,
Ba! rcenas, Arizcun, Pe! rez Elortondo, Albisu, & Torre,
*
*
1999) or ripening time (Ordonez,
Ibanez,
Torre,
Barcina, & Pe! rez Elortondo, 1998), has on ewes milk
cheese sensory properties. However, all these studies
have been carried out using conventional sensory
proling techniques, and never by free choice proling
(FCP) or any other alternative, and useful sensory
methodologies such as direct similarity measurements
(DSM).
Classical proling methods consider that each panelist
is using the sensory lexicon in the same way. However,
several authors have stated that there are several sources
of individual variation that cannot be completely
avoided even after intensive training (Williams &
Arnold, 1985). In order to avoid these variability
sources, FCP was considered as a possible solution,
and it has been successfully used to describe different
cows milk cheeses such as Cheddar (Jack, Piggott, &
Paterson, 1993) or Parmiggiano Regiano (Parolari,
Virgili, Panari, & Zannoni, 1994). Although there are
several statistical techniques available, most of the
research work dealing with FCP employ Generalized
Procrustes Analysis to treat the data (Dijksterhuis &

0958-6946/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 8 - 6 9 4 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 3 9 - 5

68

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

Gower, 1991/2). Few applications have been described

on the use of other potentially useful techniques such as
Generalized Canonical Analysis (GCA) (van der Burg,
Leeuw, & Dijksterhuis, 1994).
On the other hand, sensory proling has received
some criticism. Some authors suggest that the grouping
of individual sensory elements (sensory attributes) does
not necessarily convey what is really being perceived,
that is to say, that words cannot clearly describe what is
being felt (Chauhan & Harper, 1986). In order to avoid
this negative point, other techniques such as DSM
(Carroll & Chang, 1970) and hedonic measurements
! & Albisu, 1998;
(Ba! rcenas, Pe! rez Elortondo, Salmeron,
Ba! rcenas, Pe! rez San Roman, Pe! rez Elortondo, &
Albisu, 2001b) have been used to compare different
cheese varieties. Due to the existence of such a wide
range of sensory methodologies, several procedures have
been suggested in order to compare the results (King,
Cliff, & Wall, 1998). A number of research studies
dealing with different sensory comparison methodologies have pointed out that multidimensional map sample
score correlation analysis can be considered a useful tool
in this approach (Heymann, 1994; Gilbert & Heymann,
1995; Risvik, McEwan, & Rodbotten, 1997). As far as
the authors know, no research work has been published
on ewes milk cheese sensory data comparison, and the
techniques used in this study.
The objectives of this work were (1) to compare the
sensory characteristics of ewes milk cheeses using FCP
and (2) to explore the differences and similarities
between several sensory methodologies as well as diverse
statistical multidimensional scaling techniques.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Cheese samples
Eight different ewes milk cheese varieties were
considered for this study. Samples were selected
according to production and consumption in the area
under investigation (Basque Country and Navarra
North of Spain). Attention was focussed on the
Protected Designation of Origin Idiazabal cheese, a
variety made in the Basque Country and Navarra
North of Spain from raw ewes milk which is very
important from the point of view of the agroindustry
economy of this region (Pe! rez Elortondo et al.,
1999a, b). The main sample technological characteristics
and cheese code numbers are presented in Table 1.
2.2. Assessors
The group of assessors was composed of 20 students
from Facultad de Farmacia (VitoriaSpain), the number
of panelists being similar to the recommendations of

Table 1
Main characteristics of ewes milk cheese samples under investigation
Code
number

Cheese variety

Idiaz!abal

Idiaz!abal

Idiaz!abal

Idiaz!abal

Idiaz!abal

6
7
8

Roncal
Manchego
Castellano

10
10
7

Ripening
time
(months)

Characteristics

Raw milk, nonsmoked, farmhouse

origin, PDOa
Raw milk, nonsmoked, PDO
Raw milk, smoked,
PDO
Raw milk, nonsmoked, PDO
Raw milk, smoked,
PDO
Raw milk, PDO
Pasteurized milk, PDO
Raw milk

PDO: Protected designation of origin cheese.

Piggott, Paterson, Fleming, and Sheen (1991/2) for this

type of study. They were all frequent consumers of ewes
milk cheeses. None had previous experience in sensory
analysis, whether descriptive, discriminatory or hedonic
measurements.
2.3. Sensory analysis
Three different sensory methodologies were employed
in this study: FCP, DSM and preference measurements.
Development of FCP was carried out in four steps.
1. Lexicon development. Kellys Repertory Grid Method
was used to develop the list of descriptive terms that
panelists used to evaluate the samples. Pairs of
samples were presented to individuals and they were
asked to nd as many differences and similarities
among cheeses as possible. More details on this
process can be found elsewhere (Ba! rcenas, Pe! rez
! & Albisu, 1999). During this
Elortondo, Salmeron,
step, the objective of the study was explained to the
assessors.
2. Individual sensory scale definition. Once the list of
terms had been developed, each term was located on
a 7 point continuous scale marked with the anchors
1=null or very slight to 7=very intense. In this
way, 20 individual scoresheets were dened, one for
each panelist.
3. Vocabulary selection. Assessors were given the
complete set of samples to be studied thereafter.
The objective of this session was twofold. First, to
delete redundant or synonymous terms rst added to
the list, and at the same time to include any new
descriptors that had not been initially included in the
ballot. Second, to familiarize assessors with the sheets
they would have to use when evaluating the samples.

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

4. Sample evaluation. Several portions of cheeses were

given to each assessor of the different cheese varieties,
to be tasted at home. They were wrapped in a plastic
lm as when supplied from local supermarkets.
Each cheese sample was coded with a random
number and to be consumed within 15 days of the
distribution date. It was also suggested that each
panelist should store and consume the cheeses as they
would usually do. No other condition was imposed in
this instance.
DSM was carried out in normalized sensory booths,
using the following procedure. Cheese samples were
assessed in terms of direct similarity using a 7 point
category scale (0=samples are the same; 6=samples are
completely different). Similarity among all pairs of
samples was evaluated, 4 pairs of samples per session, 2
sessions per week. Using this methodology a group of 12
matrices was obtained (one for each assessor) composed
of 36 cheese similarity measurements, including a
comparison between each sample with itself. The
experimental design used is very similar to that used
by other researchers (Falahee & MacRae, 1995).
The samples for the preference measurements were
assessed using a 7 point hedonic scale (1=dislike
extremely; 4=neither like nor dislike; 7=like extremely). The hedonic measurements were carried out at
home using the samples given for FCP.
2.4. Statistical analyses
FCP data were submitted to GCA using OVERALS
program (Gi, 1990). This program allows numerical
and ordinal data treatment. Data were treated as
numerical and ordinal in order to compare results.
Sensory terms were classied as odour, avour and
texture for analysis purposes. As suggested by van der
Burg and Dijksterhuis (1996), sensory scores were
reorganized into fewer new categories in order to
minimize the existence of empty categories. New
categories were dened as follows: category 1 (initial
scores 1 and 2), category 2 (initial scores 3 and 4) and
category 3 (initial scores 5, 6 and 7). In the case of odour
attributes, category 1 was formed by initial scores 1 and
2, category 2 by initial score 3 and category 3 by initial
scores 4, 5, 6 and 7. Especially for odour, we decided to
adopt this organization system in this way minimizing
the ocurrence of unique marginal frequencies (unique
patterns). Unique patterns are correspondences between
sets shared by very few objects. For example, if there is
only one cheese sample made of goats milk and it is the
only one judged as animal odour, we have a unique
pattern. OVERALS algorithm is very sensitive to these
low marginal frequency categories obtaining extremely
high or low scores in the optimal scaling step (van der
Burg et al., 1994). In order to interpret the dimensions

69

obtained, attributes with loadings of over 0.5 were

retained.
As reported by van der Burg and Dijksterhuis (1996)
when carrying out OVERALS, if the measurement level
of all variables is numerical and there is only one
variable per set, then we are dealing with ordinary
Principal Component Analysis (PCA). In this case the t
of a solution (the eigenvalue) corresponds to the mean
explained variance of the variables, as variables and sets
are identical. This is not the case, however, when using
FCP data as in this study.
In FCP, the results are evaluated by loss and tness
measurements. The loss shows the lack of t of a
solution, being within a p-dimensional case, the minimum equal to 0 and maximum equal to p. The
eigenvalue can be calculated by dividing loss per
dimensions, and carrying out 1 minus loss per dimension. Eigenvalue is a goodness to t measure, and the
sum of these values is called total t. Eigenvalues have a
maximum value of 1.00 and the closeness to 1.00 is what
provides an indication of goodness of t. Total t is the
statistical index widely used in GCA (OVERALS) to
decide analysis solution dimensionality. There are clear
methods for determining the dimensionality when using
PCA (screen plot, explained variance of over 80%),
whereas in the case of FCP the decision to establish the
dimensionality is left in the hands of the panel leader.
DSM data were submitted to Individual Difference
Scaling (INDSCAL) (Carroll & Chang, 1970). This
statistical treatment takes into consideration individual
differences. The degree of t between nal conguration
and original data is normally expressed by the stress
measurement. Lower stress means a better t (Popper &
Heymann, 1996). Another measurement of the degree of
t is the squared correlation coefcient (RSQ) found
between the interpoint distances of the spatial conguration and the dissimilarities (original data). RSQ
ranges from 0 (no t) to 1 (perfect t) and it is frequently
interpreted as the proportion of variance in the data that
is accounted for by the distances in the DSM model.
Hedonic measurements were analyzed by means of
ANOVA and Taguchi signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
(Pastor, Costell, Izquierdo, & Dura! n, 1996). These
procedures take into consideration that acceptability
criteria are homogeneous. The variability of the
preference data was also considered and structure
analyzed using MDPREF. This technique is a metric
model based on PCA (Eckart-Young decomposition) on
a matrix of data, consisting of samples (objects) and
consumers (variables), grouping consumers according to
preference criteria. The maps were obtained using the
MDPREF Program of the PC-MDS Multidimensional
Statistic Package (Smith, 1990).
Finally, Pearsons correlation coefcients were calculated among the sample scores obtained in the rst two
dimensions from each type of multivariate analysis

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Free choice profiling (FCP)
The group of 20 assessors employed different sensory
terms to describe the odour, avour and texture of the
cheese samples. The number of descriptors varied from
between 10 and 23 for each panelist. Generally, odour
was the category in which the lowest number of terms
was employed. Some of the terms previously identied
in cheese samples were deleted from the analysis as they
showed a null variance value.
3.2. Odour
The bidimensional OVERALS solution for odour
terms had eigenvalues of 0.836 and 0.636 for rst and
second dimensions, respectively. Analysis total tness
for odour FCP data was 1.472. As described by van der
Burg and Dijksterhuis (1996), this level can be
considered as adequate for this type of treatment. For
a two-dimensional solution, van der Burg and Dijksterhuis (1996) obtained different total t indexes
depending on the study: 1.64 (apples), 1.76 (meat
products), 1.19 (water). OVERALS ordinal analysis
revealed the existence of three assessors with null losses.
These results do not appear frequently, as they indicate
that the sensory scores obtained by this group of judges
can be adequately dened using the scores from the rest
of the panelists. However, in this case, it may be due to
the greater number of attributes used by the three judges
as well as the small amount of cheese samples used for
analysis.
In order to restrict the analysis minimizing unique
patterns even more, data treatment was repeated
considering numeric levels. Results were very similar
to those observed for ordinal levels: solution tness,
eigenvalues obtained for each sensory term and cheese
sample plots. For this reason, it was decided to analyze
data only from an ordinal point of view as suggested by
van der Burg and Dijksterhuis (1996).
Fig. 1 represents the individual loss of each assessor as
well as the mean panel value for the bidimensional
OVERALS solution. It can be observed that assessor
number 6 is the one who worst ts the statistical model
dened by the rest of the individuals. The sum of loss in
the rst two dimensions for this panelist was 1.64. For
this reason, his data were deleted from the analysis and
the measurements repeated in order to observe whether
the solution was enhanced. However, the tness level

improved only slightly to 1.56, thus assessor data were

considered in further analysis.
Fig. 2 shows the cheese sample plot. Smoked Idiazabal cheese data for 3 months of ripening were deleted
from the analysis as all the assessors detected strange
odour and avour characteristics, totally atypical in this
type of product. This may be due to elaboration
problems in the cheese batch. Hedonic measurement
was carried out at the assessors homes at the same time
as FCP and, due to the above-mentioned anomalies, the
cheese was also deleted from the analysis. However,
during DSM no trouble was found. This fact could be
due to intrabatch variability.
Differences appeared among all cheese samples. A
sensory difference can be pointed out within the group
*
of Idiazabal cheeses (samples 1, 2, 4 and 5). Ordonez
et al. (1998) detected great heterogeneity among several
Idiazabal cheeses independent of their ripening time or
smoked character. In this study, and concerning odour
attributes, ripening time seemed to play a major role in
odour differentiation of the products.
Interpretation of the sample map (Table 2) was
obtained from the analysis of descriptors used by each
assessor. The rst dimension was characterized by

2.0

DIM2
DIM1

1.5

loss

(OVERALS, INDSCAL and MDPREF). All statistical

treatment, except MDPREF, was performed using SPSS
6.1 Statistic Package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).

1.0

.5

0.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mean

assessors
DIM1: dimension1; DIM2: dimension 2

Fig. 1. Individual assessors loss for the bidimensional OVERALS

odour analysis.

2.0

7
2
Dimension 2

70

0.0

.4

5
-2.0
-2.0

0.0
Dimension 1

2.0

Fig. 2. Bidimensional cheese sample plot for OVERALS odour

analysis. Details on cheese samples can be found in Table 1.

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

71

Table 2
Denition of bidimensional OVERALS solution for odour analysis
Dimension 1a

Dimension 2

Intensity1 (0.765)
Butyric1 (0.641)
Vegetable2 (0.500)
Intensity5 (0.753)
Vegetable8 (0.637)
Ripened11 (0.939)
Intensity11 (0.726)
Intensity12 (0.753)
Intensity13 (0.753)
Sweat13 (0.644)
Animal14 (0.918)
Intensity16 (0.570)
Intensity19 (0.596)
Moisture19 (0.753)
Intensity20 (0.637)

Cream15 (0.735)
Fresh17 (0.757)
Lactic18 (0.850)
Yoghurt20 (0.596)

Flowers4 (0.808)
Yoghurt5 (0.505)
Fresh5 (0.736)
Cream7 (0.878)
Fruity9 (0.708)
Candy9 (0.500)
Milk15 (0.500)
Sweet18 (0.739)
Sweet Cheese20 (0.660)

Concentrated milk1(0.504)
Acid1 (0.788)
Intensity4 (0.691)
Animal7 (0.691)
Sweat7 (0.568)
Intensity7 (0.568)
Acid9 (0.599)
Animal9 (0.576)
Intensity10 (0.632)
Rancid11 (0.734)
Smoke12 (0.788)
Intensity15 (0.691)
Acid17 (0.696)
Barn18 (0.788)

Numbers after each descriptor identify sensory assessor who employed it during free choice proling.

sensory attributes considered as strong or very intense

with positive coefcients (odour intensity, animal)
opposite the lactic notes in the negative zone (cream,
yoghurt). The second dimension was dened with
positive values by milky, sweet and owery sensory
notes, while odour intensity and animallic notes
characterize the negative axis. Intensity and oftenassociated terms seemed to increase diagonally, from
top left to bottom right.
Considering the above axis denition, it can be
pointed out that ripened Idiazabal cheeses (samples 4
and 5) were the most intense in odour, characterized by
animal notes, especially smoked variety (Fig. 2). Ortigosa et al. (1999) in studying raw ewes milk cheeses
observed a very big increase in terms such as odour
intensity during ripening. Muir and Hunter (1992)
pointed out the same effect studying the ripening of
Cheddar cheese, whereas creamy notes decreased. On
the other hand, young Idiazabal samples (samples 1 and
2) were perceived as milky and sweet cheeses. Roncal
(sample 6), Castellano (sample 8) and Manchego
(sample 7) cheeses were described as intense in odour
but with several milky notes (cream, candy, sweet). It is
interesting to note that although Manchego cheese had
the same ripening period as Idiazabal matured variety,
its sensory characteristics were different. This could be
due to the different composition and elaboration
procedures of both cheeses and to the use of milk
pasteurization during Manchego manufacturing.
Some sensory attributes were clearly identied as
bidimensional, that is to say that they are not being
employed in the same way by all the assessors (van der
Burg & Dijksterhuis, 1996). This effect has been pointed
out in similar studies. Jack et al. (1993) observed that the
same term was used differently by several panelists to

1.0
DIM2
DIM1

.8
.6

loss

.4
.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mean

assessors
DIM1: dimension1; DIM2: dimension 2

Fig. 3. Individual assessors loss for the bidimensional OVERALS

avour analysis.

describe the colour of Cheddar cheeses. Attribute

bidimensionality makes sample maps difcult to interpret, being one of the major disadvantages of FCP
techniques, in which assessors consensus does not exist.
3.3. Flavour
The bidimensional OVERALS solution for avour
terms had eigenvalues of 0.981 and 0.875 for rst and
second dimension, respectively, giving an overall tness
of 1.856. This value is higher than for odour analysis
tness (1.472). Williams and Langron (1984) in a study
on commercial ports also observed a higher consensus
among assessors for avour terms than for odour. This
may be due, as suggested by Lesschaeve and Issanchou
(1997) to the fact that panelists are more accustomed to
describing mouthfeel sensations than odour stimulus.
Fig. 3 shows the existence of 7 assessors with null loss
values. Mean loss values were 0.144 and 0.501 for

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

72

avour and odour, respectively, indicating better consensus among panelists when evaluating avour properties. In this case, panelist number 4 showed the highest
loss (0.815), while number 6 got relatively low loss
values (0.209). This fact corroborates the hypothesis
that some individuals have greater ability to describe a
specic type of stimulus (Lesschaeve & Issanchou,
1997).
The bidimensional sample plot (Fig. 4) for avour
shows clear differences when compared with odour
sample plot (Fig. 2). There was a cluster formed by
Idiazabal cheese samples (samples 2, 4 and 5, except for
farmhouse origin, sample 1), Roncal (sample 6) and
Castellano (sample 8). Manchego (sample 7) and farmhouse Idiazabal (sample 1) cheeses were located totally
independent from the rest of the varieties. Samples were
spread especially along dimension 1, except for Manchego (sample 7) that is found at the negative end of
dimension 2.
Idiazabal cheese samples 2, 4 and 5 were located very
near to the origin (0.0) of the sample plot (Fig. 4). As
suggested by Lawless, Sheng, and Knoops (1995), this
tendency should be interpreted as a lack of clear
differences among samples involved in this clustering.
Ripened Idiazabal cheeses (samples 4 and 5) were close
together. Although (sample 5) was smoked, the assessors

Dimension 2

2.5
6.
.
4
2 .
.
5

0.0

-2.5
-2.5

did not perceive a great difference between the two

samples. Pe! rez Elortondo, Albisu and Barcina (1999a)
explained that the smoking treatment within Idiazabal
Designation of Origin is a very light process frequently
only perceived on the rind, and only very slightly in the
mass.
In order to aid interpretation of this sample distribution, in the same way as for odour analysis, sensory
attributes weights were studied (Table 3). The number of
attributes with high correlation coefcients dening
each dimension was lower than in odour analysis.
Dimension 1 was dened in the positive zone by terms
that could be considered strong or intense (bitter,
pungent, intensity, sharp) while the negative zone was
composed of a number of terms which could be
described as sweet, fresh, acid and pungent. Dimension
2 was dened in the positive axis by persistence,
intensity and salty, whereas negatively correlated terms
were astringency, old, dry (typical attributes for matured
samples) and toasty, fresh (typical terms for pasteurized
varieties). In a study on a variety of traditional Spanish
ewes milk cheeses, it was found that toasted sensory
attributes are especially important in pasteurized cheeses
(Ortigosa, Torre, & Izco, 2000). In the present study, the
diversity of attributes with different meanings dening
each dimension makes it difcult to interpret sample
locations.
As a summary, within avour FCP, sensory differences were perceived among samples, but the attributes
dening different dimensions did not clearly describe
these differences.

.
.7
0.0
Dimension 1

2.5

Fig. 4. Bidimensional cheese sample plot for OVERALS avour

analysis. Details on cheese samples can be found in Table 1.

3.4. Texture
The bidimensional OVERALS solution for texture
terms had eigenvalues of 0.955 and 0.872 for rst and
second dimension, respectively, giving a total tness
equal to 1.827. This value was very similar to that
obtained for avour analysis, and in any case above
odour total tness. Mean loss was 0.128, below odour
and avour values, showing a higher consensus among

Table 3
Denition of bidimensional OVERALS solution for avour analysis
Dimension 1a

Dimension 2

Intensity2 (0.797)
Salty2 (0.564)
Intensity6 (0.580)
Aftertaste8 (0,525)
Intensity9 (0.628)
Whey9 (0.723)
Pungent16 (0.807)
Bitter18 (0.736)
Sharp19 (0.644)

Acid1 (0.905)
Pungent3 (0.905)
Bitter9 (0.583)
Fresh11 (0.545)
Sweet13 (0.701)
Acid14 (0.905)
Pungent15 (0.730)
Fresh17 (0.575)
Animal17 (0.512)

Milk2 (0.507)
Intensity3 (0.665)
Salty7 (0.586)
Persistence19 (0.698)

Fresh5 (0.727)
Toasty9 (0.961)
Astringent14 (0.727)
Old15 (0.685)
Animal16 (0.587)
Dry18 (0.961)

Numbers after each descriptor identify sensory assessor who employed it during free choice proling.

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

panelists. As observed in Fig. 5, there were 4 assessors

with null loss, numbers 2, 4, 9 and 10. Panelist number
17 showed the highest loss of all (1.002).
As for odour and avour analysis, the texture sample
plot showed differences among samples and with
previous analysis (Fig. 6). Williams and Langron
(1984) reported different samples maps for odour,
avour and texture attributes using FCP to describe
ports.
Cheese groups could be identied along dimension 2
(Fig. 6), with Roncal (sample 6) and ripened Idiazabal
(samples 4 and 5) cheeses on one side, while farmhouse
Idiazabal (sample 1) and Castellano (sample 8) formed
another group. Young Idiazabal (sample 2) and
especially the Manchego (sample 7) cheeses appeared
well differentiated from the rest of the samples.
Manchego cheese seemed to be rmer than the other
samples. All samples except for Manchego cheese
(sample 7) showed almost constant value for dimension
1, spread along dimension 2. It was interesting to note
the extreme values for dimension 1 between young
Idiazabal cheeses, farmhouse (sample 1) and industrial
cheeses (sample 2). This dimension was characterized by
the attribute hardness in the negative zone opposite
friability with positive scores. Along this line, Muir,

1.2
DIM2
1.0

DIM1

loss

.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mean

assessors
DIM1: dimension1; DIM2: dimension 2

Fig. 5. Individual assessors loss for the bidimensional OVERALS

texture analysis.

Dimension 2

2.0

7
0.0

.4 6.
5
.
1 8

. .

-2.0
-2.5

0.0
Dimension 1

2.5

Fig. 6. Bidimensional cheese sample plot for OVERALS texture

analysis. Details on cheese samples can be found in Table 1.

73

Banks, and Hunter (1997) identied more sensory

relevance differences for farmhouse Cheddar compared
with industrial cheeses.
Texture attribute weights are shown in Table 4.
Dimension 1 was characterized positively by creaminess,
adhesiveness and elasticity, and negatively by hardness,
graininess and greasyness. Dimension 2 showed creaminess and elasticity with positive coefcients, whereas
hardness and wrinkliness dened the negative axis.
Hardness (juxtaposed to creaminess) was negatively
related to both dimensions 1 and 2. Several terms
present bidimensional character, dimension 1 and 2
being very similar.

3.5. Direct similarity measurements (DSM)

From the group of 20 assessors initially participating
in this study only 18 performed the direct similarity
exercise, 2 leaving the group.
Bidimensional INDSCAL solution showed 0.32 and
0.31 scores for stress and RSQ, respectively. These
values reveal the existence of individual differences
among assessors at the time of sample evaluation
(Kruskal, 1964). These high stress values are quite
common when using INDSCAL analysis even with
highly trained assessors (Bertino & Lawless, 1993).
For this reason, INDSCAL analysis should be
employed to take all data variability into account.
Fig. 7 shows the existence of differences among assessors sensations, perceptions or cognitions for cheese
samples. Panelists appeared clearly dispersed mainly
along dimension 2, with values from 0.2 to 0.6
approximately, while values in dimension 1 were more
clustered (0.20.5), except for assessor 15. This may
suggest that assessor 15 clustered the samples using a
different pattern to the rest of the group.
Fig. 8 shows the sample spatial map derived from
INDSCAL. It can be clearly appreciated that there were
three differentiated groups of samples: ripened Idiazabal
(sample 4 and 5), young Idiazabal (samples 1, 2 and 3)
and the rest of the cheese varieties (Roncal, Manchego,
Castellano, samples 6, 7 and 8, respectively) having a
lower clustering level. Assessors perceived similarities in
Idiazabal cheese sample with regard to their ripening
time, whether smoked or not. This fact was also
observed for FCP results.
In this case, cheese clustering was more evident than
for odour, avour or texture OVERALS solutions. It is
clear that untrained assessor result interpretation can be
done more easily using DSM, as cheese sample
characteristics are considered as a whole.
However, quantitative as well as qualitative differences can be identied and characterized in detail using
only descriptive sensory proling techniques. This fact
has also been described by several authors (Matuszewska,

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

74

Table 4
Denition of bidimensional OVERALS solution for texture analysis
Dimension 1a

Dimension 2

Elasticity4 (0.591)
Pastiness6 (0.571)
Creaminess9 (0.560)
Elasticity9 (0.533)
Creaminess14 (0.955)
Adhesiveness15 (0.511)
Deformability16 (0.746)
Adhesiveness18 (0.985)
Creaminess19 (0.820)

Dry1 (0.834)
Graininess1 (0.779)
Hardness7 (0.817)
Graininess7 (0.737)
Wrinkliness10 (0.533)
Hardness12 (0.591)
Greasy12 (0.986)
Greasy13 (0.985)
Graininess13 (0.511)
Plastic14 (0.994)
Hardness15 (0.570)
Hardness16 (0.841)
Hardness17 (0.985)
Greasy17 (0.902)
Greasy20 (0.718)
Graininess20 (0.985)

Deformability1 (0.750)
Friability2 (0.676)
Firmness4 (0.516)
Elasticity5 (0.705)
Friability10 (0.509)
Wrinkliness11 (0.571)
Creaminess12 (0.628)
Adhesiveness15 (0.703)
Pastiness16 (0.783)
Creaminess20 (0.789)

Hardness2 (0.774)
Deformability2 (0.548)
Hardness3 (0.750)
Hardness5 (0.753)
Pastiness6 (0.563)
Wrinkliness8 (0.516)
Greasy8 (0.682)
Hardness11 (0.572)
Crunchy12 (0.628)
Graininess18 (0.687)
Wrinkliness20 (0.605)

Numbers after each descriptor identify sensory assessor who employed it during free choice proling.

3.6. Hedonic measurements

Usually, a great number of assessors are required if
the objective of the researcher is to interpret hedonic
data as representative of the global population. However, the opinion of a few individuals was taken into
account in this study, as one of the objectives was to
compare spatial congurations using different sensory
methodologies, more than to explore overall consumer
preference structures.
Two-way ANOVA (sample  assessor) on hedonic
scores showed the existence of clear differences among
individual likings po0:001: However, cheese samples
gave very similar hedonic scores ranging from 3.4 to 4.6,
for young non-smoked Idiazabal (sample 2) and
Manchego (sample 7) cheeses, respectively (Table 5).
Taking into consideration Taguchi SNR, it can be stated
that scores for Manchego cheese (sample 7) are the most
robust as well as the highest. Pastor et al. (1996) also
employed this statistical index as an alternative way to
assess preference data robustness.

.6
2

1 4

10

.5

Dimension 2

Barylko-Pikielna, Tarkkonen, Hellemann, & Tuorila,

1991/2).
In the present study, FCP results were not a great help
when characterizing and identifying cheese varieties in
detail. Intensity attributes seemed to play an important
role in the FCP odour map (and slightly less in the
avour map), but even this aspect was more clearly
perceived in the DSM map. In this case, basic sample
information (especially ripening time) enables the reader
to interpret the spatial sample DSM conguration. For
a detailed sensory description, the use of a trained panel
would have been of great assistance.

15
11
17 5
13

.4
12

.3

16

14

6
9

18
3
.2
.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

Dimension 1
Fig. 7. INDSCAL analysis. Dimensional weights for assessors evaluating ewes milk cheeses using direct similarity measures.

2.0

. .4

5
Dimension 2

.7
2

.
. 3.

0.0

-2.0
-2.0

0.0

2.0

Dimension 1
Fig. 8. INDSCAL analysis. Multidimensional arrangement of cheese
samples based on individual direct similarity data matrices. Details on
cheese samples can be found in Table 1.

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

75

Table 5
Two-way ANOVA (sample  assessor) and Taguchi signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for hedonic measures
Source

dF

SS

Sign.

Samples
Assessors
Total error
Samplesa
Hedonic score
Taguchi SNR

6
19
139
7
4.6
12.35

19.486
113.029
363.886
5
4.4
11.56

3.248
5.949

0.153
0.000

8
4.1
10.49

4
3.9
10.51

1
3.6
9.01

2
3.4
8.94

Information on cheese codes can be found in Table 1.

1.5

7
Dimension 2

6
4.0
10.12

2
1

0.0

-1.5
-1.5

0.0

1.5

Dimension 1
Fig. 9. Bidimensional MDPREF biplot showing cheese samples
(triangles) and consumers (dots). Details on cheese samples can be
found in Table 1.

As suggested by Yackinous, Wee, and Guinard

(1999), if assessor preference criteria are not homogeneous, conclusions reached using mean preference
scores may be worthless. When dealing with these cases,
it is better to study panelists individual likings. Internal
preference mapping (MDPREF) showed clear differences among consumers likings (Fig. 9). The two rst
biplot dimensions explained 34.5% and 24.3% of
variance, respectively. A group of 10 consumers
preferred the Roncal (sample 6), Manchego (sample 7)
and Castellano (sample 8), the rest being distributed
around the whole preference ellipse.
Sample conguration in Fig. 9 showed similarities
with odour OVERALS and INDSCAL solution, with
Manchego (sample 7), Roncal (sample 6) and Castellano
(sample 8) cheeses quite near one another. This fact
could be indicating that odour characteristics play an
important role at the time of dening consumer
preference for these types of samples.
3.7. Sensory methodology correlation
Correlation matrix for the rst two dimensions of the
different sensory methodologies employed in this study
is shown in Table 6. It can be appreciated that the rst
INDSCAL dimension showed a positive signicant
correlation po0:05 with ODOR1, FLAV1 and nega-

tive with MDPREF1. These high correlation coefcients

could be due to the fact that odour and avour intensity
(cheese maturity) was a common factor within these
dimensions (ODOUR1, FLAV1 and INDS1). However,
it is not so with texture. As pointed out by Gilbert and
Heymann (1995) in a similar study, it may be due to the
different nature of characteristics taken into consideration when using each sensory methodology.
Differentiation of the Idiazabal cheese from the others
could be the common factor between INDS1 and
MDPREF1. Moreover, Falahee and MacRae (1995)
underlined that when performing DSM, hedonic dimension may be playing a very decisive role in sample
classication. This may be the explanation for the higher
correlation coefcient between INDS1 and MDPREF1.
TEXT1 and FLAV2 present a signicant correlation coefcient po0:01; mainly due to sample 7
(Manchego).

4. Conclusions
The FCP has proved to be successful in the sensory
description of several food products. However, in this
study the maps obtained by means of this technique
were not easy to interpret without any other external
source of information (e.g. traditional sensory prole,
familiarity with cheeses, etc.). Manchego cheese variety
showed the highest sensory differences among samples,
these differences being the most easily interpretable
ones. Cheese samples showed specic sensory characteristics mainly based on ripening time, although this
evidence may be considered tenuous mainly due to the
lack of panel consensus during attribute scoring. Great
individual variability was observed for the considered
techniques. These problems could have been avoided by
the use of a trained panel.
The main dimensions showed signicant correlation
for almost every multidimensional solution. These
results described the similarities between the underlying
dimensions once assessors are evaluating the samples.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the sensory test to be
employed should be carefully selected and, if possible,
validated with allied methods depending on the

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777

76

Table 6
Correlation matrix for sample scores obtained by the different sensory methodologies

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

INDS1
INDS2
ODOR1
ODOR2
FLAV1
FLAV2
TEXT1
TEXT2
MDPREF1
MDPREF2

10

1.000

0.044
0.747b
0.552
0.791b

0.431

0.546

0.148

0.823b
0.247

1.000
0.509

0.509
0.235
0.015

0.221
0.096
0.237

0.239

1.000

0.001
0.635

0.231

0.493

0.312

0.649

0.139

1.000
0.382

0.482

0.357
0.255

0.588
0.435

1.000

0.001

0.159
0.157

0.443
0.004

1.000
0.937c
0.051
0.429

0.642

1.000
0.000
0.473

0.613

1.000
0.435
0.541

1.000
0.000

1.000

INDS: Direct similarity measures; ODOR: odour free choice proling; FLAV: avour free choice proling; TEXT: texture free choice proling;
MDPREF: preference measures; 1: dimension 1; 2: dimension 2.
b
po0:05:
c
po0:01:

objectives of the study as well as the availability of a

trained panel or time requirements.

Acknowledgements
This work was nanced by Universidad del Pa!s
Vasco (UPV 101.123-TA095/96). Pedro Ba! rcenas
thanks the Departamento de Industria, Agricultura y
Pesca of the Basque Government for a fellowship.
Members of the ewes milk cheese panel are thanked for
their enthusiastic participation in this study.

References
B!arcenas, P., P!erez Elortondo, F. J., & Albisu, M. (2000). Selection
and screening of a descriptive panel for ewes milk cheese sensory
proling. Journal of Sensory Studies, 15, 7999.
! J., & Albisu, M.
B!arcenas, P., P!erez Elortondo, F. J., Salmeron,
(1998). Recalled preference of Spanish consumers for smoked food.
Nutrition and Food Science, 6, 338342.
! J., & Albisu, M.
B!arcenas, P., P!erez Elortondo, F. J., Salmeron,
(1999). Development of a preliminary sensory lexicon and standard
references of ewes milk cheeses aided by multivariate statistical
procedures. Journal of Sensory Studies, 14, 161179.
! J., & Albisu, M.
B!arcenas, P., P!erez Elortondo, F. J., Salmeron,
(2001a). Ewes milk cheeses sensory proling. Food Science and
Technology International, 7, 347353.
B!arcenas, P., P!erez San Roman, R., P!erez Elortondo, F. J., & Albisu,
M. (2001b). Consumer preference structures for traditional Spanish
cheeses and their relationship with sensory properties. Food Quality
and Preference, 12, 269279.
Bertino, M., & Lawless, H. T. (1993). Understanding mouthfeel
attributes: A multidimensional scaling approach. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 8, 101114.
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences
in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalisation of EckartYoung decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283319.
Chauhan, J., & Harper, R. (1986). Descriptive proling versus direct
similarity assessents of soft drinks. Journal of Food Technology, 21,
175187.

Dijksterhuis, G., & Gower, J. C. (1991/2). The interpretation of

Generalised Procrustes Analysis and allied methods. Food Quality
and Preference, 3, 6787.
Falahee, M., & MacRae, A. W. (1995). Consumer appraisal of
drinking water: Multidimensional scaling analysis. Food Quality
and Preference, 6, 327332.
Freitas, C., & Malcata, F. X. (2000). Microbiology and biochemistry
of cheeses with Appelation dOrigine Protegee and manufactured in
the Iberian Peninsula from ovine and caprine milks. Journal of
Dairy Science, 83, 584602.
Gi, A. (1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Gilbert, J. M., & Heymann, H. (1995). Comparison of four sensory
methodologies as alternatives to descriptive analysis for the
evaluation of apple essence aroma. The Food Technologist
(NZIFST), 24, 2832.
Heymann, H. (1994). A comparison of free choice proling and
multidimensional scaling of vanilla samples. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 9, 445453.
Jack, F. R., Piggott, J. R., & Paterson, A. (1993). Discrimination of
texture and appearance of Cheddar cheese using consumer free
choice proling. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 167176.
Kalantzopoulos, G. C. (1993). Cheeses from ewes and goats milk. In
F. P. Fox (Ed.), Cheese: Chemistry, physics and microbiology (pp.
507543). London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
King, M. C., Cliff, M. A., & Wall, J. H. (1998). Comparison of
Projective Mapping and sorting data collection and multivariate
methodologies for identication of similarity-of-use of snack bars.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 347358.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing
goodness of t to a non metric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29,
127.
Lavanchy, P., M"ege, J., P!erez Elortondo, F. J., Bivar Roseiro, L.,
Scintu, M. F., Torre, P., B!arcenas, P., & &Loygorri, S. (1999).
A guide to the sensory evaluation of the texture of hard and semi-hard
ewes milk cheeses. Luxembourg: Ofce for Ofcial Publications of
the European Communities.
Lawless, H. T., Sheng, N., & Knoops, S. S. C. P. (1995). Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception.
Food Quality and Preference, 6, 9198.
Lesschaeve, I., & Issanchou, S. (1997). Could selection tests detect the
future performance of descriptive panellists? Food Quality and
Preference, 7, 177183.
Matuszewska, I., Barylko-Pikielna, N., Tarkkonen, L., Hellemann, U.,
& Tuorila, H. (1991/2). Similarity ratings versus proling of
spreads: do we need both? Food Quality and Preference, 3, 4750.

!
P. Barcenas
et al. / International Dairy Journal 13 (2003) 6777
Muir, D. D., & Hunter, E. A. (1992). Sensory evaluation of
Cheddar cheese. The relation of sensory properties to
perception of maturity. Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology,
45, 2330.
Muir, D. D., Banks, J. M., & Hunter, E. A. (1997). A comparison of
the avour and texture of Cheddar cheese of factory or farmhouse
origin. International Dairy Journal, 7, 479485.
*
*
Ordonez,
A. I., Ibanez,
F. C., Torre, P., Barcina, Y., & P!erez
Elortondo, F. J. (1998). Application of multivariate analysis to
sensory characterization of ewes milk cheese. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 13, 4555.
Ortigosa, M., B!arcenas, P., Arizcun, C., P!erez Elortondo, F. J., Albisu,
M., & Torre, P. (1999). Inuence of the starter culture on the
microbiological and sensory characteristics of ewes cheese. Food
Microbiology, 16, 237247.
Ortigosa, M., Torre, P., & Izco, J. (2000). Effect of pasteurization of
ewes milk and use of a native starter culture on the volatile
components and sensory characteristics of Roncal cheese. Journal
of Dairy Science, 84, 13201330.
Parolari, G., Virgili, R., Panari, G., & Zannoni, M. (1994).
Development of a vocabulary of terms for sensory evaluation of
Parmigiano Reggiano cheese by free choice proling. Italian
Journal of Food Science, 3, 317324.
Pastor, M. V., Costell, E., Izquierdo, L., & Dur!an, L. (1996).
Optimizing acceptability of a high fruit-low sugar peach nectar
using aspartame and guar gum. Journal of Food Science, 61(4),
852855.
P!erez Elortondo, F. J., Albisu, M., & Barcina, Y. (1999). Physicochemical and microbiological parameters in semihard and hard
ewes milk cheeses: Effect of the smoking process. Scienza e Tecnica
Lattiero-Casearia, 50, 89102.
! J., & Albisu,
P!erez Elortondo, F. J., B!arcenas, P., Casas, C., Salmeron,
M. (1999). Standardization of sensory methodologies: Some

77

applications to protected designation of origin cheeses. Sciences

des Aliments, 19, 543558.
Piggott, J. R., Paterson, A., Fleming, A. M., & Sheen, M. R. (1991/2).
Consumer perceptions of dark rum explored by free choice
proling. Food Quality and Preference, 3, 135140.
Popper, R., & Heyman, H. (1996). Analyzing differences among
products and panelists by multidimensional scaling. In T. Naes, &
E. Risvik (Eds.), Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science
(pp. 159184). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., & Rodbotten, M. (1997). Evaluation of
sensory proling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and
Preference, 8, 6371.
Smith, S. M. (1990). Pc-mds multidimensional statistic package, version
5.1. Utah, USA: Institute of Business MGT, Brigham Young
University, Provo.
van der Burg, E., & Dijksterhuis, G. (1996). Generalised canonical
analysis of individual sensory proles and instrumental data. In
T. Naes, & E. Risvik (Eds.), Multivariate analysis of data in sensory
science (pp. 221258). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier
Science.
van der Burg, E., Leeuw, J., & Dijksterhuis, G. B. (1994). OVERALS
Nonlinear Canonical Correlation with k sets of variables.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 18, 141163.
Williams, A. A., & Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free-choice
proling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, 558568.
Williams, A. A., & Arnold, G. M. (1985). A comparison of the aromas
of six coffees characterized by conventional proling, free-choice
proling and similarity scaling methods. Journal of the Science of
Food and Agriculture, 36, 204214.
Yackinous, C., Wee, C., & Guinard, J. X. (1999). Internal preference
mapping of hedonic ratings for Ranch salad dressings varying in
fat and garlic avor. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 401409.