Evaluation of farmed cod products by a trained sensory panel and consumers in different test settings

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 280-293

  Sveinsdóttir, Kolbrún ^a,b   Martinsdóttir, Emilía ^a   Thórsdóttir, Fanney ^b   Schelvis, Rian ^c   Kole, Adriaan ^c   Thórsdóttir, Inga ^b  

^a Matis ohf Iceland   (Iceland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND   (Iceland)

^c Wageningen IMARES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER EVALUATION; COOKING METHODS; INTENSITY SCALE; SENSORY ATTRIBUTES; SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS; SENSORY PANELS; STRESS LEVELS;

RATING;

EID: 77955997396     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2009.00257.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Boutrolle I, Arranz D, Rogeaux M, Delarue J. Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion. Food Qual. Prefer 2005, 16:704-771.
2. Boutrolle I, Delarue J, Arranz D, Rogeaux M, Köster EP. Central location test vs. home use test: Contrasting results depending on product type. Food Qual. Prefer 2007, 18:490-499.
3. Cardello AV, Bell R, Kramer FM. Attitudes of consumers towards military and other institutional foods. Food Qual. Prefer 1996, 7(1):7-20.
4. Damsgård B. Fish welfare and ethical qualities in aquaculture. Improved Seafood Products for the Consumer 2008, 490-512. BØRresen T. ed.) Woodhead Publisher, Cambridge, U.K
5. De Graaf C, Cardello AV, Kramer FM, Lesher LL, Meiselman HL, Schutz HG. A comparison between liking ratings obtained under laboratory and field conditions: The role of choice. Appetite 2005, 44:15-22.
6. Greenhoff K, Macfie HJH. Preference mapping in practice. Measurements of Food Preference 1994, 137-166. Macfie HJH, Thomson DMH. eds.) Academic and Professional, London, U.K
7. Hersleth M, Mevik BH, Næs T, Guinard JX. Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine - use of robust design methodology. Food Qual. Prefer 2003, 14:615-622.
8. Hersleth M, Ueland Ø, Allain H, Næs T. Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions. Food Qual. Prefer 2005, 16:103-110.
9. Sensory Analysis. General Guidance for Selection, Training and Monitoring of Assessors. Part 1. Selected Assessors 1993, ISO, Standard No. 8586-1, The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland
10. King SC, Weber AJ, Meiselman HL, Lv N. The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Qual. Prefer 2004, 15:645-653.
11. King SC, Meiselman HL, Hottenstein AW, Work TM, Cronk V. The effects of contextual variables on food acceptability: A confirmatory study. Food Qual. Prefer 2007, 18:58-65.
12. Lawless HT, Heymann HH. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices 1999, Chapman & Hall, London, U.K
13. Meilgaard M, Civille CV, Carr BT. Sensory Evaluation Techniques 1999, CRC Press Inc, London, U.K
14. Meiselman HL, Johnson JL, Reeve W, Crouch JE. Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 2000, 35:231-237.
15. Mela DJ. A comparison of single and concurrent evaluations of sensory and hedonic attributes. J. Food Sci 1989, 54(4):1098-1100.
16. Popper R, Rosenstock W, Schraidt M, Kroll BJ. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Qual. Prefer 2004, 15:853-858.
17. Posri W, Macfie H. The influence of testing context on tea bag product acceptance in central location tests. J. Sensory Studies 2008, 23:835-851.
18. Sawyer FM, Cardello AV, Prell PA. Consumer evaluation of the sensory properties of fish. J. Food Sci 1988, 53(1):12-24.
19. Sosa M, Martinez C, Marquez F, Hough G. Location and scale influence on sensory acceptability measurements among low-income consumers. J. Sensory Studies 2008, 23:707-719.
20. Stone H, Sidel JL. Affective testing. Sensory Evaluation Practices 2004a, 247-278. Stone H, Sidel JL. 3rd, Ed., eds.) Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
21. Stone H, Sidel JL. Descriptive analysis. Sensory Evaluation Practices 2004b, 201-244. Stone H, Sidel JL. 3rd, Ed., eds.) Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
22. Sveinsdóttir K. Fiskneysla 17 til 49 ára Íslendinga á mismunandi fisktegundum og - afur{eth}um (in Icelandic). (Fish consumption of 17-49 year old Icelanders of different fish species and - products). 2007, http://www.matis.is/media/matis/utgafa/Skyrsla_37-07_net.pdf, Matis report no 37-07. ISSN 1670-7192, Matís, Reykjavík, Iceland. (accessed May 2009
23. Sveinsdóttir K, Martinsdóttir E, Green-Petersen D, Hyldig G, Schelvis R, Delahunty C. Sensory characteristics of different cod products related to consumer preferences and attitudes. Food Qual. Prefer 2009, 20(2):120-132.
24. Thybo AK, Martens M. Analysis of sensory assessors in texture profiling of potatoes by mulivariate modelling. Food Qual. Prefer 2000, 11:283-288.
25. Verbeke V, Vackier I. Individual determinants of fish consumption: Application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 2005, 44(1):67-82.
26. Vickers ZM, Christensen CM, Fahrenholtz SK, Gengler IM. Effect of questionnaire design and the number of samples tasted on hedonic ratings. J. Sensory Studies 1993, 8:189-200.