Use of feedback calibration to reduce the training time for wine panels

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 17, Issue 3-4, 2006, Pages 266-276

  Findlay, Chris J ^a   Castura, John C ^a   Schlich, Pascal ^b   Lesschaeve, Isabelle ^c,d  

^a Compusense Inc ^*  (Canada)

^b CENTRE DES SCIENCES DU GOÛT ET DE L ALIMENTATION   (France)

^c BROCK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d SDM RPO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Calibration; Descriptive; Feedback; Training; White wine

Indexed keywords

EID: 28444490313     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. V. Aubry P. Etievant F. Sauvageot & S. Issanchou Sensory analysis of Burgundy pinot noir wines: A comparison of orthonasal and retronasal profiling Journal of Sensory Studies 14 1999 97-117
2. R.L. Bangert-Drowns C.C. Kulik J.A. Kulik & M. Morgan The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events Review of Educational Research 61 2 1991 213-238
3. J.C. Castura C.J. Findlay & I. Lesschaeve Monitoring calibration of descriptive sensory panels using distance from target measurements Food Quality & Preference 16 2005 682-690
4. E. Chambers & E.A. Smith Effects of testing experience on performance of trained sensory panelists Journal of Sensory Studies 8 1993 155-166
5. Findlay, C. J., Castura, J. C., & Lesschaeve, I. (in review). Feedback calibration: A training method for descriptive panels. Food Quality & Preference.
6. F. Kazi-Aoual S. Hitier R. Sabatier & J. Lebreton Refined approximations to permutation tests for multivariate inference Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 20 1995 643-656
7. A.N. Kluger & A. DeNisi The effect of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory Psychological Bulletin 2 1996 254-284
8. R.W. Kulhavy & W. Wager Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context and implications for practice In J.V. Dempsey & G.C. Sales (Eds.) Interactive instruction and feedback 1993 Educational Technology Publications Englewood, NJ pp. 3-20
9. C.L. Kuesten M.R. McLellan & N. Altman Computerized panel training: effects of using graphic feedback on line scale usage Journal of Sensory Studies 9 1994 413-444
10. C.L. Kuesten M.R. McLellan & N. Altman Influence of computerized panel training on contextual effects Journal of Sensory Studies 9 1994 401-412
11. H. Lawless & H. Heymann Sensory evaluation of food, principles and practices (1999) 1998 Aspen Publishers, Inc Gaithersburg, MD (a Chapman & Hall Food Science Book)
12. Lyon, D. H. (2002). Guidelines for the selection and training of assessors for descriptive sensory analysis. CCFRA Guideline No. 37. Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, UK: Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Group.
13. M. Meilgaard G.V. Civille & B.T. Carr In Selection and training of panel members In: Sensory evaluation techniques 3rd ed. 1999 CRC Press Ann Arbor pp. 133-160
14. A. Muñoz Training time in descriptive analysis In H.R. Moskowitz A.M. Muñoz & M.C. Gacula (Eds.) Viewpoints and controversies in sensory science and consumer product testing 2003 Food & Nutrition Press, Inc Trumbull, NJ pp. 351-356
15. A.C. Noble R.A. Arnold J. Buechsenstein E.J. Leach J.O. Schmidt & P.M. Stern Modification of standardized system of wine aroma terminology American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 38 1987 143-146
16. A.C. Noble R.A. Arnold B.M. Masuda S.D. Pecore J.O. Schmidt & P.M. Stern Progress towards a standardized system of wine aroma terminology American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 35 1984 107-109
17. P. Schlich Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attributes correlations In T. Naes & E. Risvik (Eds.) Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. New York pp. 259-306
18. H. Stone & J.L. Sidel Sensory evaluation practices 1985 John Wiley & Sons New York
19. Wakeling, I. (2003). Design Express 1.5. United Kingdom.
20. C.J. Wolters & E.M. Allchurch Effect of training procedures on the performance of descriptive panel Food Quality & Preference 5 1994 203-214