Evaluation of assessor performance in sensory analysis;Misura del rendimento dei componenti di un panel per l'analisi sensoriale

Italian Journal of Food Science

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 289-303

  Piggott, J R ^a   Hunter, E A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b BIOMATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Difference testing; Discrimination testing; Generalised procrustes analysis; Multi dimensional scaling; Sensory profiling; Time intensity

Indexed keywords

PROCRUSTES;

EID: 0033263896     PISSN: 11201770     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (107)

1. Banfield C.F. and Harries J.M. 1975. A technique for comparing judges' performance in sensory tests. J. Food Tech. 10: 1.
2. Barbary O., Nonaka R., Delwiche J., Chan J. and O'Mahony M. 1993. Focused difference testing for the assessment of differences between orange juices made from orange concentrate. J. Sens. Stud. 8: 43.
3. Baxter I.A., Jack F.R. and Schröder M.J.A. 1998. The use of repertory grid method to elicit perceptual data from primary school children. Food Qual. Pref. 9: 73.
4. Bloom K., Duizer L.M. and Findlay C.J. 1995. An objective numerical method of assessing the reliability of time-intensity panelists. J. Sens. Stud. 10: 285.
5. Brien C.J., May P. and Mayo O. 1987. Analysis of judge performance in wine-quality evaluations. J. Food Sci. 52: 1273.
6. Brockhoff P.B. 1997. Statistical testing of individual differences in sensory profiling. Ch. 2. In "Actes des 5èmes Journées Agro-industrie et Méthodes Statistiques. Versailles, 3-5 Décembre 1997". C. Durier and A. Kobilinsky (Ed.), INRA, Versailles.
7. Brockhoff P.B. 1998. Assessor modelling. Food Qual. Pref. 9: 87.
8. Brockhoff P.B. and Skovgaard I.M. 1994. Modelling individual differences between assessors in sensory evaluations. Food Qual. Pref. 5: 215.
9. Brockhoff P.B. and Schlich P. 1998. Handling replications in discrimination tests. Food Qual. Pref. 9: 303.
10. Brockhoff P.B., Hirst D. and Næs T. 1996. Analysing individual profiles by three-way factor analysis. Ch. 10. In "Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science". T. Næs and E. Risvik (Ed.), p. 307. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
11. Canaway P.R., Piggott, J.R., Sharp R. and Carey R.G. 1984. Comparison of sensory and analytical data for cereal distillates. Ch. 22. In "Flavour Research of Alcoholic Beverages". L. Nykänen and P. Lehtonen (Ed.), p. 301. Foundation for Biotechnical and Industrial Fermentation Research, Helsinki.
12. Chambers E. IV and Smith E.A. 1993. Effects of testing experience on performance of trained sensory panelists. J. Sens. Stud. 8: 155.
13. Coatzee H. and Taylor J.R.N. 1996. The use and adaptation of the paired-comparison method in the sensory evaluation of hamburger-type patties by illiterate/semi-literate consumers. Food Qual. Pref. 7: 81.
14. Couronne T. 1997. A study of assessors' performance using graphical methods. Food Qual. Pref. 8: 359.
15. Dacremont C., Roger C. and Sauvageot F. 1998. Replicated triangle tests: effect of feed-back and product comparison on performance. J Sens. Stud. 13: 413.
16. Dijksterhuis G.B. 1993. Principal component analysis of time-intensity bitterness curves. J. Sens. Stud. 8: 317.
17. Dijksterhuis G.B. 1995. Assessing panel consonance. Food Qual. Pref. 6: 7.
18. Dijksterhuis G.B. 1997. "Multivariate Data Analysis in Sensory and Consumer Science". Food & Nutrition Press, Trumbull, CT.
19. Dijksterhuis G.B. and van den Broek E. 1995. Matching the shape of time-intensity curves. J. Sens. Stud. 10: 149.
20. Dijksterhuis G.B. and Punter P.H. 1990. Interpreting Generalized Procrustes Analysis "Analysis of Variance" tables. Food Qual. Pref. 2: 255.
21. Dijksterhuis G.B. and Eilers P.H.C. 1997. Modelling time-intensity curves using prototype curves. Food Qual. Pref. 8: 131.
22. Dijksterhuis G.B., Flipsen M. and Punter P.H. 1994. Principal Components Analysis of Time-Intensity data: three methods compared. Food Qual. Pref. 5: 121.
23. Dugle J. 1997. Note on "Experts versus consumers: a comparison". J. Sens. Stud. 12: 147.
24. Ennis D.M. and Bi J. 1998. The Beta-binomial model: accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sens. Stud. 13: 389.
25. Gacula M.C. and Singh J. 1984. "Statistical Methods in Food and Consumer Research". Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
26. Gatchalian M.M., de Leon S.Y and Yano T. 1991. Control chart technique: a feasible approach to measurement of panelist performance in product profile development. J. Sens. Stud. 6: 239.
27. Gawel R. 1997. The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters. J. Sens. Stud. 12: 267.
28. Gay C. and Mead R. 1992. A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. J. Sens. Stud. 7: 205.
29. Gómez C., Fiorenza F., Izquierclo L. and Costell E. 1998. Perception of mealiness in apples: a comparison of consumers and trained assessors. Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. A 207: 304.
30. Guerrero L., Gou P. and Arnau J. 1997. Descriptive analysis of toasted almonds: a comparison between expert and semi-trained assessors. J. Sens. Stud. 12: 39.
31. Guinard J.-X., Hong D.Y. and Budwig C. 1995. Time-intensity properties of sweet and bitter stimuli: implications for sweet and bitter taste chemoreception. J. Sens. Stud. 10: 45.
32. Guy C., Piggott J.R. and Marie S. 1989. Consumer profiling of Scotch whisky. Food Qual. Pref. 1: 69.
33. Hanson J.E., Kendall D.A. and Smith N.F. 1983. The missing link: correlation of consumer and professional sensory descriptions. Institute of Food Technologists Annual Meeting, 20 June 1983.
34. Harries J.M. and Smith G.L. 1982. The two-factor Triangle test. J. Food Tech. 17: 153.
35. Hirst D. and Næs T. 1994. A graphical technique for assessing differences among a set of rankings. J. Chemometrics 8: 81.
36. Hough G. 1998. Experts versus consumers: a critique. J. Sens. Stud. 13: 285.
37. Huerta-Leidenz N., Jerez-Timaure N., Morón-Fuenmayor O., Urdaneta E.R. and Caro R. 1996. Experiencias en el entrenamiento de un panel de degustación de carne vacuna a nivel de un matadero frigorifico industrial venezolano. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición 46: 47.
38. Hunter E.A. 1996. Experimental design. Ch. 2. In "Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science". T. Næs and E. Risvik (Ed.), p. 37. Elsevier. Amsterdam.
39. Hunter E.A. and Muir D.D. 1997. Assessor performance in a sequential series of sensory profiling experiments. Ch. 7. In "Actes des 5èmes Journées Agro-industrie et Méthodes Statistiques, Versailles, 3-5 Décembre 1997". C. Durier and A. Kobilinsky (Ed.), INRA, Versailles.
40. Hunter E.A. and McEwan J.A 1998. Evaluation of an international ring trial for sensory profiling of hard cheese. Food Qual. Pref. 9: 343.
41. Hunter E.A., Muir D.D. and Brennan, R.M. 1995. Comparison of the performance of an external sensory panel with an internal panel. Ch. 7. In "4èmes Journées Agro-industrie et Méthodes Statistiques, Dijon, 7-8 Décembre 1995". p. 77. INRA.
42. Issanchou S., Lesschaeve I. and Köster E.P. 1995. Screening individual ability to perform descriptive analysis of food products: basic statements and application to a Camembert cheese descriptive panel. J. Sens. Stud. 10: 349.
43. Issanchou S., Schlich P. and Lesschaeve I. 1997. Sensory analysis: methodological aspects relevant to the study of cheese. Lait 77: 5.
44. ISO8586-1: 1993. Assessors for sensory analysis. Part 1. Guide to the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors.
45. ISO8586-2: 1994. Assessors for sensory analysis. Part 2. Guide to the selection, training and monitoring of experts.
46. Jack F.R. and Piggott J.R. 1993. Free choice profiling in consumer research. Food Qual. Pref. 3: 129.
47. Jellinek G. 1985. "Sensory Evaluation of Food -Theory and Practice". Ellis Horwood, Chichester/VCH, Weinheim.
48. Land D.G. and Shepherd R. 1988. Scaling and ranking methods. Ch. 6. In "Sensory Analysis of Foods". J.R. Piggott (Ed.), p. 155. Elsevier Applied Science, London.
49. Lawless H.T. 1985. Psychological perspectives on winetasting and recognition of volatile flavours. Ch. 8. In "Alcoholic Beverages". G.G Birch and M.G. Lindley (Ed.), p. 97. Elsevier AppliedScience, London.
50. Lawless H.T. 1991. Bridging the gap between sensory science and product evaluation. Ch. 1. In "Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods". H.T. Lawless and B.P. Klein (Ed.), p. 1. Marcel Dekker, New York.
51. Lea P., Roødbotten M. and Næs T. 1995. Measuring validity in sensory analysis. Food Qual. Pref. 6: 321.
52. Lesschaeve I. and Issanchou S. 1996a. Could selection tests detect the future performance of descriptive panellists? Food Qual. Pref. 7: 177.
53. Lesschaeve I. and Issanchou S. 1996b. Effects of panel experience on olfactory memory performance: influence of stimuli familiarity and labeling ability of subjects. Chem. Sens. 21: 699.
54. Lesschaeve I., Issanchou S. and Schlich P. 1995. Importance relative de la selection et de l'entrainement sur les performances d'un jury d'analyse sensorielle descriptive. Ch. 9. In "4èmes Journées Agro-industrie et Méthodes Statistiques, Dijon, 7-8 Décembre 1995". p. 97. INRA.
55. Liu Y.H. and MacFie H.J.H. 1990. Methods for averaging time-intensity curves. Chem. Sens. 15: 471.
56. Lorenzen P.Chr., Einhoff K., Molkentin J. and Schlimme E. 1998. Entwicklung einer methodik zum länderübergreifenden vergleich der sensorischen bewertung von hart-und schnittkäse. Kieler Milchwirtschaftliche Forschungs-berichte 50: 153.
57. Lundahl D.S. and McDaniel M.R. 1990. Use of contrasts for the evaluation of panel inconsistency. J. Sens. Stud. 5: 265.
58. Lundahl D.S. and McDaniel M.R. 1991. Influence of panel inconsistency on the outcome of sensory evaluations from descriptive panels. J. Sens. Stud. 6: 145.
59. McCloskey L.P., Sylvan M. and Arrhenius S.P. 1996. Descriptive analysis for wine quality experts determining appellations by Chardonnay wine aroma. J. Sens. Stud. 11: 49.
60. MacFie H.J.H. and Liu Y.H. 1992. Developments in the analysis of time-intensity curves. Food Tech. 46(11): 92.
61. MacFie H.J.H., Bratchell N., Greenhoff K. and Vallis L.V. 1989. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. J. Sens. Stud. 4: 129.
62. MacRae A.W. 1995. Confidence intervals for the Triangle test can give reassurance that the products are similar. Food Qual. Pref. 6: 61.
63. Malundo T.M.M. and Resurreccion A.V.A. 1992. A comparison of performance of panels selected using analysis of variance and cluster analysis. J. Sens. Stud. 7: 63.
64. Mangan P.A.P. 1992. Performance assessment of sensory panelists. J. Sens. Stud. 7: 229.
65. Meilgaard M., Civille G.V. and Carr B.T. 1991. "Sensory Evaluation Techniques" 2nd ed. CRC Press.
66. Minoza-Gatchalian M., de Leon S.Y. and Yano T. 1990. Quantified approach to sensory panelist selection. Food Qual. Pref. 2: 233.
67. Moskowitz H.R. 1996. Experts versus consumers: a comparison. J. Sens. Stud. 11: 19.
68. Moskowitz H.R. 1997. A reply: Note on "Experts versus consumers: a comparison". J. Sens. Stud. 12: 155.
69. Moskowitz H.R. 1998. Consumers versus experts in the light of psychophysics: A reply to Hough. J. Sens. Stud. 13: 291.
70. Muir D.D. and Hunter E.A. 1991/2. Sensory evaluation of cheddar cheese: order of tasting and carryover effects. Food Qual. Pref. 3: 141.
71. Næs T. 1990. Handling individual differences between assessors in sensory profiling. Food Qual. Pref. 2: 187.
72. Nass T. 1998. Detecting individual differences among assessors and differences among replicates in sensory profiling. Food Qual. Pref. 9: 107.
73. Næs T. and Solheim R. 1991. Detection and interpretation of variation within and between assessors in sensory profiling. J. Sens. Stud. 6: 159.
74. Næs T., Hirst D. and Baardseth P. 1994. Using cumulative ranks to detect individual differences in sensory profiling. J. Sens. Stud. 9: 87.
75. Nielsen R.G. and Zannoni M. 1998. Progress in developing an international protocol for sensory profiling of hard cheese. Int. J. Dairy Tech. 51: 57.
76. Noronha R.L., Damásio M.H., Pivatto M.M. and Negrillo B.C. 1995. Development of the attributes and panel screening for texture descriptive analysis of milk gels aided by multivariate statistical procedures. Food Qual. Pref. 6: 49.
77. O'Mahony M. 1991. Descriptive analysis and concept alignment. Ch. 8. In "Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods". H.T. Lawless and B.P. Klein (Ed.), p. 223. Marcel Dekker, New York.
78. O'Mahony M., Thieme U. and Goldstein L.R. 1988. The warm-up effect as a means of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. J. Food Sci. 53: 1848.
79. Pal D., Sachdeva S. and Singh S. 1995. Methods for determination of sensory quality of foods: A critical appraisal. J. Food Sci. Tech. - Mysore 32: 357.
80. Parolari G., Virgili R., Panari G. and Zannoni, M. 1994. Development of a vocabulary of terms for sensory evaluation of Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese by free-choice profiling. Ital. J. Food Sci. 6: 317.
81. Pastor M.V., Costell E., Izquierdo L. and Durán L.I.L. 1996. Sensory profile of peach nectars. Evaluation of assessors and attributes by generalized Procrustes analysis. Food Sci. Tech. Int. 2: 219.
82. Piggott J.R. 1991. Selection of terms for descriptive analysis. Ch. 12. In "Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods". H.T. Lawless and B.P. Klein (Ed.), p. 338. Marcel Dekker, New York.
83. Piggott J.R. 1995. Design questions in sensory and consumer science. Food Qual. Pref. 6: 217.
84. Piggott J.R., Carey R.G. and Canaway P.R. 1985. Sensory analysis and evaluation of whisky. Ch. 6. In "Alcoholic Beverages". G.G. Birch and M.G. Lindley (Ed.), p. 69. Elsevier Applied Science, London.
85. Piggott J.R., Sheen M.R. and Apostolidou S.G. 1990. Consumers' perceptions of alcoholic beverages. Food Qual. Pref. 2: 177.
86. Piggott J.R., Simpson S.J. and Williams S.A.R. 1998. Sensory analysis. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 33: 7.
87. Popper R. and Heymann H. 1996. Analysing differences among products and panellists by multidimensional scaling. Ch. 6. In "Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science". T. Næs and E. Risvik (Ed.), p. 159. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
88. Qannari E.M., Wakeling I. and MacFie H.J.H. 1995. A hierarchy of models for analysing sensory data. Food Qual. Pref. 6: 309.
89. Qannari E.M., MacFie H.J.H. and Courcoux P. 1999. Performance indices and isotropic scaling factors in sensory profiling. Food Qual. Pref. 10: 17.
90. Rousset-Akrim S., Martin J.-F., Pilandon C. and Touraille C. 1995. Research of selective tests for discerning "An Efficient Assessor" in texture profiling. J. Sens. Stud. 10: 217.
91. Schlich P. 1993. Uses of change-over designs and repeated measurements in sensory and consumer studies. Food Qual. Pref. 4: 223.
92. Schlich P. 1994. Grapes: A method and a SAS™ program for graphical representations of assessor performances. J. Sens. Stud. 9: 157.
93. Schlich P. 1996. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. Ch. 9. In "Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science". T. Næs and E. Risvik (Ed.), p. 259. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
94. Sinesio F. and Moneta E. 1997. Sensory evaluation of walnut fruit. Food Qual. Pref. 8: 35.
95. Sinesio F., Risvik E. and Rødbotten M. 1990. Evaluation of panelist performance in descriptive profiling of rancid sausages: A multivariate study. J. Sens. Stud. 5: 33.
96. Sinesio F., Moneta E. and Saba A. 1991/2. Comparison of multivariate methods of analysis to evaluate panellists' performance. Food Qual. Pref. 3: 201.
97. Sinesio F., Moneta E., Spataro P. and Quaglia G.B. 1995. Determination of sensory quality of dehydrated vegetables with profiling. Ital. J. Food Sci. 7: 11.
98. Sivertsen H.K. and Risvik E. 1994. A study of sample and assessor variation: a multivariate study of wine profiles. J. Sens. Stud. 9: 293.
99. Smith G.L. 1981. Statistical properties of simple sensory difference tests - confidence limits and significance tests. J. Sci. Food Agric. 32: 513.
100. Solomon G.E.A. 1991. Language and categorization in wine expertise. Ch. 9. In "Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods". Lawless H.T. and Klein B.P. (Ed.), p. 269. Marcel Dekker, New York.
101. Stampanoni Koeferli C., Schwegler P.P. and Hong-Chen D. 1998. Application of classical and novel sensory techniques in product optimization. Lebensm.-Wiss. u-Technol. 31: 407.
102. Stone H. and Sidel J.L. 1992. "Sensory Evaluation Practices" 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.
103. Virgili R., Parolari G., Schivazappa C., Casiraghi E. and Pompei C. 1994. Sensory analysis of Italian dry-cured sausage: checking of panel performance. Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 27: 278.
104. Wilkinson C. and Yüksel D. 1997. Modeling differences between panellists in use of measurement scales. J. Sens. Stud. 12: 55.
105. Wolters C.J. and Allchurch E.M. 1994. Effect of training procedure on the performance of descriptive panels. Food Qual. Pref. 5: 203.
106. Zamora M.C. and Calviño A.M. 1996. A comparison of methodology applied to the selection of a panel for sensory evaluation of instant coffee. J. Sens. Stud. 11: 211.
107. Zannoni M. 1997. Approaches to translation problems of sensory descriptors. J. Sens. Stud. 12: 239.