Performance indices in descriptive sensory analysis - A complimentary screening tool for assessor and panel performance

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 122-133

  Tomic, Oliver ^a   Forde, Ciaran ^b   Delahunty, Conor ^c   Næs, Tormod ^a  

^a NOFIMA   (Norway)

^b NESTLÉ RESEARCH CENTER   (Switzerland)

^c CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assessor and panel performance; Descriptive sensory analysis; Performance indices framework; RV and RV2 correlation coefficient; Screening tool

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868616219     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.06.012     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abdi H. RV and congruence coefficients. Encyclopedia of measurement & statistics 2007, 849-853. SAGE publications Inc. N.J. Salkind (Ed.).
2. Abdi H. STATIS. Encyclopedia of Measurement & Statistics 2007, 955-963. SAGE publications Inc. N.J. Salkind (Ed.).
3. Abdi H., Valentin D., Chollet S., Chrea C. Analyzing assessors and products in sorting tasks: DISTATIS, theory and applications. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:627-640.
4. Brereton R. Chemometrics for pattern classification 2009, Wiley, (pp. 442-447).
5. Blancher G., Le S., Sieffermann J.-M., Chollet S. Comparison of visual appearance and texture profiles of jellies in France and Vietnam and validations of attribute transfer between the two countries. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:185-196.
6. Brockhoff P.B., Hirst D., Næs T. Analysing individual profiles by three-way factor analysis. Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science 1996, Elsevier, Amsterdam. T. Næs, E. Risvik (Eds.).
7. Campo E., Ballester J., Langlois J., Dacremont C., Valentin D. Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequency-based descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:44-55.
8. Dahl T., Tomic O., Wold J.P., Næs T. Some new tools for visualising multi-way sensory data. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:103-113.
9. Dahl T., Næs T. Identifying outlying assessor in sensory profiling using fuzzy clustering and multi-block methodology. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:287-294.
10. Derks E.P.P.A. PANCA: Panel concordance analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:324-329.
11. Dijksterhuis G. Assessing panel consonance. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:7-14.
12. Drake M.A., Jones V.S., Russel T., Harding R., Gerard P.D. Comparison of lexicons for descriptive analysis of whey and soy proteins in New Zealand and the USA. Journal of Sensory Studies 2007, 22:433-452.
13. Escoufier Y. Le traitment des variables vectorielles. Biometrics 1973, 29:751-760.
14. Findlay C.J., Castura J.C., Schlich P., Lesschaeve I. Use of feedback calibration to reduce the training time for wine panels. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:266-276.
15. Heo M., Gabriel K.R. A permutation test of association between configurations by means of the RV coefficient. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 1998, 27:843-856.
16. Hunter J.D. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Computing in Science & Engineering 2007, 9:90-95.
17. Jones, E., Oliphant, T., & Peterson, P. (2001). Scipy: Open source scientific tools for Python. Available at: http://www.scipy.org.
18. Josse J., Pagés J., Husson F. Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2008, 53:82-91.
19. Kazi-Aoual F. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlation. Handbook of Statistics 1993, 4:813-830.
20. Kermit M., Lengard V. Assessing the performance of a sensory panel - panellist monitoring and tracking. Journal of Chemometrics 2006, 19:154-161.
21. Kherif F., Poline J.-B., Mériaux S., Benali H., Flandin G., Brett M. Group analysis in functional neuroimaging: Selecting subjects using similarity measures. NeuroImage 2003, 20:2197-2208.
22. Klingenberg C.P. Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of landmarks: Tools for evaluating a priori hypotheses. Evolution & Development 2009, 11:405-421.
23. Labbe D., Rytz A., Hugi A. Training is a critical step to obtain reliable product profiles in a real food industry context. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:341-348.
24. Lê S., Pagès J., Husson F. Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: Application to a cross-cultural study. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:179-184.
25. Lê S., Husson F. SensoMineR: A package for sensory data analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:14-25.
26. Lea P., Rødbotten M., Næs T. Measuring validity in sensory analysis. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:321-326.
27. Luciano G., Næs T. Interpreting sensory data by combining principal component analysis and analysis of variance. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:167-175.
28. Meyners M. Permutation test: Are there differences in product liking?. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:345-351.
29. McEwan J.A. Proficiency testing for sensory profile panels: Measuring panel performance. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:181-190.
30. McDonnell E., Hulin-Bertaud S., Sheenan E.M., Delahunty C.M. Development and learning process of a sensory vocabulary for the odor evaluation of selected distilled beverages using descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16:425-445.
31. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:431-438.
32. Nestrud, M.A., & Lawless, H.T. (2008b). The distribution of the RV coefficient for comparing multivariate configurations. Poster at Sensometrics 2008, Elsevier, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
33. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Perceptual mapping of apples and cheeses using projective mapping and sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:390-405.
34. Næs T. Handling individual differences between assessors in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 1990, 2:187-199.
35. Næs T., Solheim R. Detection and interpretation of variation within and between assessors in sensory profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies 1991, 6:159-177.
36. Næs T., Brockhoff P.B., Tomic O. Statistics for Sensory and Consumer Science 2010, Wiley, UK.
37. PanelCheck software - visualisation of panel and assessor performance (2006). Available at: http://www.panelcheck.com.
38. Parr W.V., Valentin D., Green J.A., Dacremont C. Evaluation of French and New Zealand Sauvignon wines by experienced French wine assessors. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:56-64.
39. Python programming language (2010). Available at: http://www.python.org.
40. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
41. Romano R., Brockhoff P.B., Hersleth M., Tomic O., Næs T. Correcting for different use of the scale and the need for further analysis of individual differences in sensory analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:197-209.
42. Schlich P. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. T, Næs 1996, Multivariate analysis of data in sensory sciences, New York, Elsevier. E. Risvik (Ed.).
43. Schlich, P., Pineau, N., Brajon, D., & Qannari, E.M. (2004). Multivariate control of assessor performances. In Proceedings: Seventh Sensometrics Meeting, Davis, California, US.
44. Smilde A.K., Kiers H.A.L., Biljsma S., Rubingh C.M., van Erk M.J. Matrix correlations for high-dimensional data: The modified RV-coefficient. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:401-405.
45. Tomic O., Nilsen A., Martens M., Næs T. Visualization of sensory profiling data for performance monitoring. LWT 2007, 40:262-269.
46. Tomic O., Luciano G., Nilsen A., Hyldig G., Lorensen K., Næs T. Analysing sensory panel performance in a proficiency test using the PanelCheck software. European Food Research and Technology 2010, 230:497-511.