Cover not available
Part of
Sensory Experiences: Exploring meaning and the senses
Danièle Dubois, Caroline Cance, Matt Coler, Arthur Paté and Catherine Guastavino
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 24] 2021
► pp. 537–572

Chapter 15
Free sorting task for exploring sensory categories

ORCID logo
ORCID logo
ORCID logo
Article outline
  • 15.1Background
    • 15.1.1A shift from the psychophysical tradition
    • 15.1.2The task
    • 15.1.3Free sorting tasks in psychology and sensory sciences
    • 15.1.4Theoretical framework for free sorting task
    • 15.1.5Free sorting task for sensory experiences
  • 15.2Guidelines and recommendations
    • 15.2.1Modality-specific procedure of free sorting task
      • 15.2.1.1Instructions
      • 15.2.1.2Stimuli selection vs. “objects” to be sorted
      • 15.2.1.3Participants
    • 15.2.2Output analysis
      • 15.2.2.1Mathematical analysis
        • Clustering stimuli
        • Representing categories as additive trees
        • Representing categories as central partition
        • Clustering participants, or measuring inter-participant agreement
        • Going further
        • Within-group distance
        • Levels of categorization
        • Incomplete designs
        • Fuzzy boundaries
      • 15.2.2.2Verbal analysis
    • 15.2.3Reconnecting to physical description of stimuli
  • 15.3Conclusions: Interests of free sorting task
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.24.15pat
References (88)
References
Aiken, L. S., & Williams, T. M. (1973). A developmental study of schematic concept formation. Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 162–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arabie, P., & Boorman, S. A. (1973). Multidimensional Scaling of Measures of Distance Between Partitions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 10(2), 148–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballester, J., Abdi, H., Langlois, J., Peyron, D., & Valentin, D. (2009). The Odor of Colors: Can Wine Experts and Novices Distinguish the Odors of White, Red, and Rose Wines? Chemosensory Perception, 2(4), 203–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 111 (3), 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barthelemy, J.-P. (1991). Similitude, arbres et typicalité. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Sémantique et cognition : Catégories, prototype et typicalité (pp. 205–224). Paris, France: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Barthelemy, J.-P., & Guénoche, A. (1991). Trees and representations of proximities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Berland, A., Gaillard, P., Guidetti, M., & Barone, P. (2015). Perception of Everyday Sounds: A Developmental Study of a Free Sorting Task. Plos One, 10(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, S. J., & Banerji, I. (2016). Evidence-based recommendations for designing free-sorting experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1318–1336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boriskin, M. (2019). The categorization of environmental sounds. Unpublished honours thesis, McGill University.
Brenac, T. (2002). Méthodes de partition centrale appliquées à l’étude de catégories cognitives. In J. Poitevineau (Ed.), Arbres, Classes, Distances (Vol. 6, pp. 71–103). Paris, France: LCPE.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Lui, L. (1989). The primacy of age and sex in the structure of person categories. Social cognition, 7(3), 262–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University press.Google Scholar
Brusco, M. J., & Cradit, J. D. (2005). ConPar: A method for identifying groups of concordant subject proximity matrices for subsequent multidimensional scaling analyses. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(2), 142–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadoret, M., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2009). A factorial approach for sorting task data (FAST). Food Quality and Preference, 20(6), 410–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cance, C., & Dubois, D. (2015). Dire notre experience du sonore: Nomination et dénomination. Langue Française, 188(4), 15–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartier, R., Rytz, A., Lecomte, A., Poblete, F., Krystlik, J., Belin, E., & Martin, N. (2006). Sorting procedure as an alternative to descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food quality and preference, 17(7–8), 562–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chollet, S., Valentin, D., & Abdi, H. (2014). Free Sorting Task. In P. V. Tomasso & G. Ares (Eds.), Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling (pp. 207–227). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Courcoux, P., Qannari, E. M., Taylor, Y., Buck, D., & Greenhoff, K. (2012). Taxonomic free sorting. Food Quality and Preference, 23 (1), 30–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D. (2000). Categories as acts of meaning: The case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1, 35–68.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., & Fleury, D. (1994). From classification to cognitive categorization: the example of the road lexicon. In E. Diday, Y. Lechevallier, M. Schader, P. Bertrand, & B. Burtschy (Eds.), New approaches in classification and data analysis (pp. 25–35). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faye, P., Brémaud, D., Daubin, M. D., Courcoux, P., Giboreau, A., & Nicod, H. (2004). Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Quality and Preference, 15 (7), 781–791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, P., Nodet, R., & Guastavino, C. (2017). La perception visuelle des cidres de glace québécois en fonction de l’expertise de ses consommateurs. In 15ème Journée du Sensolier, Paris.Google Scholar
Gaillard, P. (2000). Étude de la perception des transitoires d’attaque des sons de steeldrums : particularites acoustiques, transformation par synthèse et catégorisation (PhD Thesis). Universite de Toulouse II – Le Mirail.
(2009). Laissez-nous trier ! In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le Sentir et le Dire (pp. 189–210). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Giboreau, A., Guerrand, C. D. S., & Dubois, D. (2009). Décrire : Identifier ou catégoriser. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le sentir et le dire (pp. 211–232). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Giboreau, A., Navarro, S., Faye, P., & Dumortier, J. (2001). Sensory evaluation of automotive fabrics: the constribution of categorization tasks writing t=rules based on terminology. Food quality and preference, 12, 311–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1960). The concept of the stimulus in psychology. American Psychologist, 15 (11), 694–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, A. N., & Greenberg, M. S. (1992). Stimulus selection in the design and interpretation of olfactory studies. In Science of olfaction (pp. 309–334). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giordano, B. L., Guastavino, C., Murphy, E., Ogg, M., Smith, B., & McAdams, S. (2011). Comparison of methods for collecting and modeling dissimilarity data: Applications to complex sound stimuli. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 46(5), 779–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in Weigl-type card-sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 404–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guastavino, C. (2003). Etude sémantique et acoustique de la perception des basses fréquences dans l’environnement urbain (PhD Thesis). Université Pierre et Marie Curie.
(2006). The ideal urban soundscape: Investigating the sound quality of French cities. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 92(6), 945–951.Google Scholar
(2007). Categorization of environmental sounds. Canadian journal of experimental psychology, 61 (1), 54–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guastavino, C., Boriskin, M., & Fraisse, V. (n.d.). Cross-classification of environmental sound. submitted
Guénoche, A., & Garreta, H. (2000). Can we have confidence in a tree representation? In Proceedings of JOBIM (pp. 45–56). Montpellier (France).Google Scholar
Gygi, B., Kidd, G. R., & Watson, C. S. (2007). Similarity and categorization of environmental sounds. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(6), 839–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing Partitions. Journal of Classification, 2, 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L. J. (1977). Nominal Scale Response Agreement as a Generalized Correlation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 30(1), 98–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huson, D. H., & Scornavacca, C. (2012). Dendroscope 3 — An interactive viewer for rooted phylogenetic trees and networks. Systematic Biology, 61 (6), 1061–1067. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R., White, D., Van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121 (3), 313–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Reed, C. (1987). There’s more to touch than meets the eye: The salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(4), 356–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krieger, A. M., & Green, P. E. (1999). A generalized rand-index method for consensus clustering of separate partitions of the same data base. Journal of Classification, 16(1), 63–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawless, H., Sheng, N., & Knoops, S. S. C. P. (1995). Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference, 6(2), 91–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lelièvre, M., Chollet, S., Abdi, H., & Valentin, D. (2008). What is the validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Qualïty and Preference, 19(8), 697–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacQueen, J. B. (1967). Some Methods for classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. In Proceedings of5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (pp. 281–297). University of California Press.Google Scholar
Maffiolo, V., Dubois, D., David, S., Castellengo, M., & Polack, J.-D. (1998). Loudness and pleasantness in structuration of urban soundscapes. In Proceedings of Internoise. Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Mantel, N. (1967). The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 27(2), 209–220.Google Scholar
Marcotorchino, J.-F., & Michaud, P. (1982). Agrégation de similarités en classification automa-tique. Revue de Statistiques Appliquées, 30(2), 21–44.Google Scholar
Moore, B. C. J. (2013). An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Morel, J., Marquis-Favre, C., Dubois, D., & Pierrette, M. (2012). Road traffic in urban areas: A perceptual and cognitive typology of pass-by noises. Acta acustica united with acustica, 98(1), 166–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niessen, M., Van de Cruys, T., Cance, C., & Dubois, D. (2013). Sound and Noise in Sonic Environmental Studies: Comparing Word Meaning in Discourses of Community Noise and Soundscape Research. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 99(6), 853–862. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paté, A., Boschi, L., Dubois, D., Le Carrou, J.-L., & Holtzman, B. (2017). Auditory display of seismic data: On the use of expert’s categorizations and verbal descriptions as heuristics for geoscience. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141 (3), 2143–2162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paté, A., Boschi, L., Le Carrou, J.-L., & Holtzman, B. (2016). Categorization of seismic sources by auditory display: A blind test. International Journal on Human-Computer Studies, 85, 57–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paté, A., Lavandier, C., Minard, A., & Griffon, I. L. (2017). Perceived unpleasantness of aircraft flyover noise: Influence of temporal parameters. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 103(1), 34–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paté, A., Le Carrou, J.-L., Navarret, B., Dubois, D., & Fabre, B. (2015). Influence of the Electric Guitar’s Fingerboard Wood on Guitarists’ Perception. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 101 (2), 347–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Picard, D., Dacremont, C., Valentin, D., & Giboreau, A. (2003). Perceptual dimensions of tactile textures. Acta Psychologica, 114 (2), 165–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poitevineau, J. (2002). Arbres, classes, distances (Vol. 6). LCPE.Google Scholar
(2009). Prendre ses distances : de l’usage raisonné (raisonnable) de quelques statistiques pour les arbres additifs. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le sentir et le dire (pp. 255–277). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Pruzansky, S., Tversky, A., & Carroll, J. B. (1982). Spatial versus tree representations of proximity data. Psychometrika, 47, 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qannari, E. M., Cariou, V., Teillet, E., & Schlich, P. (2010). SORT-CC: A procedure for the statistical treatment of free sorting data. Food Quality and Preference, 21 (3), 302–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rae, A. W. M., Howgate, P., & Geelhoed, E. (1990). Assessing the similarity of odours by sorting and triadic comparison. Chemical Senses, 15(6), 691–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rand, W. M. (1971). Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336), 846–850. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(4), 283–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouby, C., Schaal, B., Dubois, D., Gervais, R., & Holley, A. (2002). Olfaction, Taste & Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouby, C., & Sicard, G. (1997). Des catégories d’odeurs? In D. Dubois (Ed.), Catégorisation et cognition (pp. 59–81). Paris, France: Kimé.Google Scholar
Santosa, M., Abdi, H., & Guinard, J.-X. (2010). A modified sorting task to investigate consumer perceptions of extra virgin olive oils. Food Quality and Preference, 21 (7), 881–892. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sattah, S., & Tversky, A. (1977). Additive similarity trees. Psychometrika, 42(3), 319–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. (1980). Multidimensional scaling, tree-fitting, and clustering. Science, 210 (4468), 390–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shulman, C., Yirmiya, N., & Greenbaum, C. W. (1995). From categorization to classification: A comparison among individuals with autism, mental retardation, and normal development. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104 (4), 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soufflet, I., Calonnier, M., & Dacremont, C. (2004). A comparison between industrial experts’ and novices’ haptic perceptual organization: A tool to identify descriptors of the handle of fabrics. Food quality and preference, 15(7–8), 689–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spinelli, S. (2018). Semiotics and Sensory Sciences: Meaning Between Texts and Numbers. In Quantitative Semiotic Analysis (pp. 75–100). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinhaus, H. (1957). Sur la division des corps matériels en parties. Bulletins de l’Académie polonaise des Sciences, 4 (12), 801–804.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Handbook of experimental psychology. Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Storms, G., Mechelen, I. V., & Boeck, P. D. (1994). Structural analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), 43–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strelnikov, S., Collett, E., Gaillard, P., Truy, é., Déguine, O., Marx, M., & Barone, P. (2018). Categorisation of natural sounds at different stages of auditory recovery in cochlear implant adult deaf patients. Hearing Research, 367, 182–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. (1952). Multidimensional scaling: I. Theory and method. Psychometrika, 17, 401–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1965). Multidimensional scaling of similarity. Psychometrika, 30 (4), 379–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Towler, A. J., & Schneider, D. J. (2005). Distinctions among stigmatized groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological review, 84 (4), 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of similarity. In E. Rosch (Ed.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 79–98). Ney York, NY, USA: John Wiley.Google Scholar
VanDerveer, N. J. (1979). Ecological acoustics: human perception ofenvironmental sounds (PhD Thesis). Cornell University.
Vogel, C. (1999). Etude sémiotique et acoustique de l’identification des signaux sonores d’avertissement en contexte urbain (PhD Thesis). Université Paris 6.
(2000). Les signaux d’avertissement : catégories et contextes d’émission. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Espaces sensoriels et formes lexicales (Vol. 4, pp. 51–76). Paris: LCPE.Google Scholar
Wedel, M., & Bijmot, T. (2000). Mixed tree and spatial representation of dissimilarity judgments. Journal of Classification, 17(2), 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickelmaier, F. (2003). An introduction to MDS (Tech. Rep.). Aalborg, Denmark: Sound Quality Research Unit – Aalborg University.Google Scholar
Zwicker, E., & Fastl, H. (1999). Psychoacoustics, facts and models (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar