A comparison of methods for monitoring individual performances in taste selection tests

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 301-312

  Calviño, Amalia ^a   Garrido, Delia ^a   Drunday, Fabián ^a   Tamasi, Olga ^a  

^a Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto M Lillo   (Argentina)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24944526160     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00028.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. BI, J. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Table for testing the significance of the R-index. J. Sens. Stud. 10, 341-347.
2. BORGOGNONE, M.G., BUSSI, J. and HOUGH, G. 2001. Principal component analysis in sensory analysis: Covariance or correlation matrix? Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 323-326.
3. BRANNAN, G.D., SETSER, C.S. and KEMP, K.E. 2001. Interaction of astringency and taste characteristics. J. Sens. Stud. 16, 179-197.
4. CALVIÑO, A.M., ZAMORA, M.C., OTERO-LOSADA, M. and BURATTI, F.M. 1996. Sensory discrimination, intensity perception and preference judgments of NaCl and NaCl/KCl mixtures. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of International Society for Psychophysics "Fechner Day 96", pp. 233-238, Padua, Italy.
5. COURONNE, T. 1997. A study of assessors' performance using graphical methods. Food Qual. Prefer. 8, 359-365.
6. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
7. ISHII, R., VIE, A. and O'MAHONY, M. 1992. Sensory difference testing: Ranking R-indices are greater than rating R-indices. J. Sens. Stud. 7, 57-61.
8. ISO 8586-1. 1993. Assessors for sensory analysis. Part I. Guide to the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors.
9. KING, M.C., HALL, J. and CLIFF, M.A. 2001. A comparison of methods for evaluating the performance of a trained sensory panel. J. Sens. Stud. 16, 567-581.
10. KUESTEN, C.L., MCLELLAN, M.R. and ALTMAN, N. 1994. Computerized panel training: Effects of using graphic feedback on scale usage. J. Sens. Stud. 9, 413-444.
11. LESSCHAEVE, I. and ISSANCHOU, S. 1996. Could selection tests detect the future performance of descriptive panellists? Food Qual. Prefer. 7, 177-183.
12. MALUNDO, T.M.M. and RESURRECCIÓN, A.V.A. 1992. A comparison of performance of panels selected using analysis of variance and cluster analysis. J. Sens. Stud. 7, 63-75.
13. MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G.V. and CARR, B.T. 1999. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
14. NAES, T. and SOLHEIM, R. 1991. Detection and interpretation of variation within and between assessors in sensory profiling. J. Sens. Stud. 6, 159-177.
15. O'MAHONY, M. 1986. Sensory multiple-difference testing, using the R-index to ascertain degrees of difference. In Sensory Evaluation of Food. Statistical Methods and Procedure, pp. 389-393, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
16. O'MAHONY, M. 1992. Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly treatment of response bias, rating and ranking R-index tests and their relationship to signal detection. J. Sens. Stud. 7, 1-47.
17. PIGGOT, J.R. and HUNTER, E.A. 1999. Evaluation of assessor performance in sensory analysis. Ital. J. Food Sci. 11, 289-303.
18. PRITCHETT MANGAN, P.A. 1992. Performance assessment of sensory panelist. J. Sens. Stud. 7, 229-252.
19. 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, 217-237.
20. STOER, N., RODRIGUEZ, M. and CIVILLE, G.V. 2002. New method for recruitment of descriptive analysis panelists. J. Sens. Stud. 17, 77-88.
21. TRINCHERO, J.L. and HERNÁNDEZ, D.R. 1984. Selección de un jurado para la evaluatión del pescado. La Alimentatión Latinoamericana 148, 14-24.
22. ZAMORA, M.C. and CALVINO, A.M. 1996. A comparison of methodology applied to the selection of a panel for sensory evaluation of instant coffee. J. Sens. Stud. 11, 211-226.