Sensory product characterisations based on check-all-that-apply questions: Further insights on how the static (CATA) and dynamic (TCATA) approaches perform

Abstract

Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions have become one of the most popular methods for sensory characterisation with consumers. Temporal CATA (TCATA) is an extension of the former that takes into account the dynamic nature of sensory perception. The aim of the present work was to expand the methodological comparison of CATA and TCATA questions, considering the characterisation of solid products that undergo substantial oral processing when consumed. Five studies involving a total of 731 consumers were conducted with different product categories: dried apricots, peas, cheese, bread and milk chocolate. A between-subjects experimental design was used to compare the static and dynamic versions of CATA questions. For comparison purposes, TCATA data were analysed as CATA by collapsing the data into four fixed time intervals (quarters). The four quarters of TCATA were compared to results from CATA considering the frequency of use of the terms, sample discrimination, and product configurations. The temporal aspect of TCATA did not largely modify the average citation proportion of terms or the maximum citation proportion for individual terms. Significant differences among samples were established for most of the terms in both CATA and TCATA evaluations, albeit some subtle differences between the two methods were found. These differences were dependent on the product category and the specific sensory characteristics that were relevant for describing the focal samples. The largest differences were found for Study 5 (milk chocolate), for which TCATA identified a few additional insights on the evolution of similarities and differences among samples. However, in most cases general findings were virtually identical for both methodological approaches. In light of these results, the extra effort of using a dynamic sensory characterisation method compared to a static one, may, in many instances, not be warranted.