What is the validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 19, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 697-703

  Lelièvre, Maud ^a,b   Chollet, Sylvie ^a   Abdi, Hervé ^c   Valentin, Dominique ^b  

^a Institut Superieur d'Agriculture   (France)

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

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Beer; Consumers; Description; distatis; Experts; Matching task; Sorting task

Indexed keywords

EID: 49149113391     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abdi H. Additive-tree representations. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 84 (1990) 43-59
2. v coefficient and the congruence coefficient. In: Salkind N. (Ed). Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (2007), Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA) 849-853
3. Abdi H., Valentin D., Chollet S., and Chrea C. Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: DISTATIS, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 627-640
4. Abdi, H., Valentin, D., O'Toole, A. J., & Edelman, B. (2005). DISTATIS: The analysis of multiple distance matrices. In Proceedings of the IEEE computer society: International conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 42-47). San Diego, CA, USA.
5. Blancher G., Chollet S., Kesteloot R., Nguyen Hoang D., Cuvelier G., and Sieffermann J.-M. French and Vietnamese: How do they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 560-575
6. Cartier R., Rytz A., Lecomte A., Poblete F., Krystlik J., Belin E., et al. Sorting procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 562-571
7. Chollet C., and Valentin D. Impact of training on beer flavor perception and description: Are trained and untrained subjects really different?. Journal of Sensory Studies 16 (2001) 601-618
8. Chollet S., and Valentin D. Impact of training on beer flavour perception. Cerevisia, Belgian Journal of Brewing and Biotechnology 31 (2006) 189-195
9. Chollet S., Valentin D., and Abdi H. Do trained assessors generalize their knowledge to new stimuli?. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005) 13-23
10. Chrea C., Valentin D., Sulmont-Rossé C., Ly M.H., Nguyen D., and Abdi H. Semantic, typicality and odor representation: A cross-cultural study. Chemical Senses 30 (2005) 37-49
11. Civille G.V., and Lawless H.T. The importance of language in describing perceptions. Journal of Sensory Studies 1 (1986) 203-215
12. Clapperton J.F., and Piggott J.R. Flavour characterization by trained and untrained assessors. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 85 (1979) 275-277
13. Corter I.E. Tree models of similarity and association (1996), Sage, Thousand Oaks
14. Coxon A.P.M. Sorting data: Collection and analysis (1999), Sage, Thousand Oaks
15. Dairou V., and Sieffermann J.-M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science 67 (2002) 826-834
16. Delarue J., and Sieffermann J.-M. Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparsion with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 383-392
17. Dravieks A. Odor quality: Semantically generated multidimensional profiles are stable. Science 218 (1982) 799-801
18. Faye P., Brémaud D., Durand Daubin M., Courcoux P., Giboreau A., and Nicod H. Perceptive free sorting verbalization tasks with naive subjects: An alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 781-791
19. Faye P., Brémaud D., Teillet E., Courcoux P., Giboreau A., and Nicod H. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 604-614
20. Gains N., and Thomson D.M.H. Sensory profiling of canned lager beers using novices in their own homes. Food Quality and Preference 2 (1990) 39-47
21. Gawel R. The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters. Journal of Sensory Studies 12 (1997) 267-284
22. Guerrero L., Gou P., and Arnau J. Descriptive analysis of toasted almond: A comparison between experts and semi-trained assessors. Journal of Sensory Studies 12 (1997) 39-54
23. Healy A., and Miller G.A. The verb as the main determinant of the sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science 20 (1970) 372
24. Hughson A.L., and Boakes R.A. The knowing nose: The role of knowledge in wine expertise. Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 463-472
25. Ishii R., and O'Mahony M. Group taste concept measurement: Verbal and physical definition of the umami taste concept for Japanese and Americans. Journal of Sensory Studies 4 (1990) 215-227
26. Lawless H.T. Flavor description of white wines by "expert" and nonexpert wine novices. Journal of Food Science 49 (1984) 120-123
27. Lawless H.T. Odor description and odor classification revisited. In: Thompson D. (Ed). Food acceptability (1988), Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York
28. Lawless H.T. Exploration of fragrances categories and ambiguous odors using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Chemical Senses 14 (1989) 349-360
29. Lawless H.T., and Glatter S. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 5 (1990) 217-230
30. Lawless H.T., Sheng N., and Knoops S.S.C.P. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference 6 (1995) 91-98
31. Lehrer A. Talking about wine. Language 51 (1975) 901-923
32. Lim J., and Lawless H.T. Qualitative differences of divalent salts: Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Chemical Senses 30 (2005) 719-726
33. MacRae A.W., Rawcliffe T., Howgate P., and Geelhoed E.N. Patterns of odour similarity among carbonyls and their mixtures. Chemical Senses 17 (1992) 119-125
34. Meilgaard M.C., Dalgliesh C.E., and Clapperton J.F. Beer flavor terminology. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 37 (1979) 47-52
35. O'Neill L., Nicklaus S., and Sauvageot F. A matching task as a potential technique for descriptive profile validation. Food Quality and Preference 14 (2003) 539-547
36. Piombino P., Nicklaus S., Le Fur Y., Moio L., and Le Quéré J.-L. Selection of products presenting given flavor characteristics: An application to wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 55 (2004) 27-34
37. Rainey B.A. Importance of reference standards in training panelists. Journal of Sensory Studies 1 (1986) 149-154
38. Saint-Eve A., Paçi Kora E., and Martin N. Impact of the olfactory quality and chemical complexity of the flavouring agent on the texture of low fat stirred yogurts assessed by three different sensory methodologies. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 655-668
39. Sauvageot F., and Fuentès P. Une approche pour valider la technique du profil sensoriel: la technique de l'appariement. Sciences de l'Aliment 20 (2000) 467-489
40. Sokolow, H. (1998). Quantitative methods for language development. In H. Moskowitz (Ed.), Applied sensory analysis of food (pp. 3-19). Boca-Raton, Florida.
41. Solomon G.E.A. Psychology of novice and experts wine talk. American Journal of Psychology 103 (1990) 495-517
42. Soufflet I., Calonnier M., and Dacremont C. A comparison between industrial experts' and novices' haptic perception organization: A tool to identify descriptors of handle of fabrics. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 689-699
43. Stampanoni C.R. The use of standardized flavor languages and quantitative flavor profiling technique for flavored dairy products. Journal of Sensory Studies 9 (1994) 383-400
44. Stevens D.A., and O'Connell R.J. Semantic-free scaling of odor quality. Physiological Behavior 60 (1996) 211-215
45. Tang C., and Heymann H. Multidimensional sorting, similarity scaling and free choice profiling of grape jellies. Journal of Sensory Studies 17 (1999) 493-509