Comparison of free-comment online product reviews and central location product testing for sensory product characterisation: A case study with coffee consumers

IF 4.9 1区农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Food Quality and Preference Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105377

Josafath I. Espinosa-Ramos , Scott C. Hutchings , Yash Dixit , David Jin , Grace S. Ryan , Mieke Marsden , Sara R. Jaeger , Marlon M. Reis

{"title":"Comparison of free-comment online product reviews and central location product testing for sensory product characterisation: A case study with coffee consumers","authors":"Josafath I. Espinosa-Ramos , Scott C. Hutchings , Yash Dixit , David Jin , Grace S. Ryan , Mieke Marsden , Sara R. Jaeger , Marlon M. Reis","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Data from online product reviews offers a novel avenue for the sensory characterisation of food. But, little research has investigated the quality of sensory information in the online reviews. The aim of this research was to investigate consumer online reviews as sources of sensory attributes of food products (starting with a minimum of 1000 online reviews per product), and to assess how the resulting sensory product profiles compare to profiles obtained in a central location test with 105 consumers using rate-all-that-apply (RATA) questions. A case study was conducted with five unflavoured coffee samples. A semi-automated approach, combining natural language processing and sensory science expertise was used to clean online review data, develop a sensory lexicon, and analyse the frequency of attributes used by consumers. It was possible to develop online review-based sensory product profiles and discriminate the five samples on this basis. Consumers used a small set of broad, mostly intensity related sensory terms (e.g. ‘Bold/rich’, ‘Strong/intense’, ‘Smooth’, ‘Weak/bland’) more frequently than descriptive terms. Canonical analysis showed high agreement between new method and RATA for product discrimination and between two group of descriptors. The first group (including ‘Coffee Flavor,’ ‘Rich in Flavor’, and ‘Smell of Coffee’) is associated with the intensity of flavour of coffee, while the second group describes characteristic flavour of coffee (including ‘Bold’, ‘Dark’ ‘Body’). Furthermore, care should be taken when implementing these findings in food categories with lower levels of consumer engagement, where consumer comments relating to sensory properties in online reviews may be less frequent.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"125 ","pages":"Article 105377"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","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/S0950329324002799","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

Data from online product reviews offers a novel avenue for the sensory characterisation of food. But, little research has investigated the quality of sensory information in the online reviews. The aim of this research was to investigate consumer online reviews as sources of sensory attributes of food products (starting with a minimum of 1000 online reviews per product), and to assess how the resulting sensory product profiles compare to profiles obtained in a central location test with 105 consumers using rate-all-that-apply (RATA) questions. A case study was conducted with five unflavoured coffee samples. A semi-automated approach, combining natural language processing and sensory science expertise was used to clean online review data, develop a sensory lexicon, and analyse the frequency of attributes used by consumers. It was possible to develop online review-based sensory product profiles and discriminate the five samples on this basis. Consumers used a small set of broad, mostly intensity related sensory terms (e.g. ‘Bold/rich’, ‘Strong/intense’, ‘Smooth’, ‘Weak/bland’) more frequently than descriptive terms. Canonical analysis showed high agreement between new method and RATA for product discrimination and between two group of descriptors. The first group (including ‘Coffee Flavor,’ ‘Rich in Flavor’, and ‘Smell of Coffee’) is associated with the intensity of flavour of coffee, while the second group describes characteristic flavour of coffee (including ‘Bold’, ‘Dark’ ‘Body’). Furthermore, care should be taken when implementing these findings in food categories with lower levels of consumer engagement, where consumer comments relating to sensory properties in online reviews may be less frequent.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在产品感官特征描述方面，自由评论式在线产品评论与中心位置产品测试的比较：咖啡消费者案例研究

来自在线产品评论的数据为食品的感官特征描述提供了一条新途径。但是，很少有研究对在线评论中感官信息的质量进行调查。本研究的目的是调查消费者在线评论作为食品感官属性来源的情况（每种产品至少有 1000 条在线评论），并评估由此得出的产品感官特征与在中心位置测试中使用 "全部适用"（rate-all-that-apply，RATA）问题对 105 名消费者进行测试后得出的产品感官特征的比较情况。对五种无味咖啡样品进行了案例研究。采用半自动化方法，结合自然语言处理和感官科学专业知识，清理在线评论数据，开发感官词典，并分析消费者使用属性的频率。在此基础上，可以建立基于在线评论的产品感官档案，并对五个样本进行区分。与描述性术语相比，消费者更频繁地使用一小套广泛的感官术语（如 "大胆/丰富"、"强烈/浓郁"、"柔滑"、"微弱/平淡"），这些术语大多与强度有关。卡农分析表明，新方法与 RATA 在产品鉴别以及两组描述词之间具有很高的一致性。第一组描述词（包括 "咖啡风味"、"风味浓郁 "和 "咖啡香味"）与咖啡风味的强度有关，而第二组描述词（包括 "浓郁"、"深沉 "和 "醇厚"）则描述了咖啡的特征风味。此外，在消费者参与度较低的食品类别中应用这些研究结果时应小心谨慎，因为在这些类别中，消费者在在线评论中对感官特性的评论可能较少。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

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.