Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: Fueling a long lasting debate in the field

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 61, Issue , 2017, Pages 79-86

  Ares, Gastón ^a   Varela, Paula ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b NOFIMA   (Norway)

Author keywords

Consumers; Descriptive analysis; Panels; Sensory characterization; Sensory evaluation; Trained assessors

Indexed keywords

EID: 85021148615     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.006     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Antmann, G., Ares, G., Varela, P., Salvador, A., Coste, B., Fiszman, S.M., Consumers’ creaminess concept perception: A cross-cultural study in three speaking countries. Journal of Sensory Studies 42 (2011), 50–60.
2. Antúnez, L., Oliveira, D., Vidal, L., Ares, G., Næs, T., Varela, P. (2015) Influence of wholistic/analytic cognitive style on results from projective mapping. In: Poster presentation at the 11th pangborn sensory science symposium, 23–27 August 2015, Gothenburg, Sweden.
3. Antúnez, A., Salvador, A., de Saldamando, L., Varela, P., Giménez, A., Ares, G., Evaluation of data aggregation in Polarized Sensory Positioning. Journal of Sensory Studies 30 (2015), 46–55.
4. Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., de Saldamando, L., Giménez, A., Ares, G., Comparison of consumer-based methodologies for sensory characterization: Case study with four sample sets of powdered drinks. Food Quality and Preference 56 (2017), 149–163.
5. Ares, G., Methodological challenges in sensory characterization. Current Opinion in Food Science 3 (2015), 1–5.
6. Ares, G., Antúnez, L., Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., Pineau, B., et al. Comparison of sensory product profiles generated by trained assessors and consumers using CATA questions: Four case studies with complex and/or similar samples. Food Quality and Preference 45 (2015), 75–86.
7. Ares, G., Bruzzone, F., Giménez, A., Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructured intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011), 363–370.
8. Ares, G., Tárrega, A., Izquierdo, L., Jaeger, S., Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Quality and Preference 31 (2014), 135–141.
9. Bende, M., Nordin, S., Perceptual learning in olfaction: Professional wine tasters versus controls. Physiology and Behavior 62 (1997), 1065–1070.
10. Bruzzone, F., Ares, G., Giménez, A., Consumers’ texture perception of milk desserts II—Comparison with trained assessors’ data. Journal of Texture Studies 43 (2012), 214–226.
11. Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Deliza, R., Ares, G., Comparison of intensity scales and CATA questions in new product development: Sensory characterisation and directions for product reformulation of milk desserts. Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015), 183–193.
12. Byrne, D.V., Bredie, W.L.P., Martens, M., Development of a sensory vocabulary for warmed-over flavour. Part II: In chicken meat. Journal of Sensory Studies 14 (1999), 67–78.
13. Byrne, D.V., O'Sullivan, M.G., Dijksterhuis, G.B., Bredie, W.L.P., Martens, M., Sensory panel consistency during development of a vocabulary for warmed-over flavour. Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001), 171–187.
14. Cain, W.S., To know with the nose: Keys to odor identification. Science 203 (1979), 467–470.
15. Cardello, A.V., Measuring consumer expectations to improve food product development. MacFie, H.J.H., (eds.) Consumer-led food product development, 2007, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, 223–261.
16. Cardello, A.V., Maller, O., Kapsalis, J.G., Segars, R.A., Sawyer, F.M., Murphy, C., et al. Perception of texture by trained and consumer panelists. Journal of Food Science 47 (1982), 1186–1197.
17. Cardinal, P., Zamora, M.C., Chambers, E., Carbonell Barrachina, Á., Hough, G., Convenience sampling for acceptability and CATA measurements may provide inaccurate results: A case study with fruit-flavored powdered beverages tested in Argentina, Spain and U.S.A. Journal of Sensory Studies 30 (2015), 295–304.
18. Chambers, E. IV, Smith, E.A., Effects of testing experience on performance of trained sensory panelists. Journal of Sensory Studies 8 (1993), 155–166.
19. Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., Abdi, H., Valentin, D., Sort and beer: Everything you wanted to know about the sorting task but did not dare to ask. Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011), 507–520.
20. Chollet, S., 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.
21. Chollet, S., Valentin, D., Abdi, H., Do trained assessors generalize their knowledge to new stimuli?. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005), 13–23.
22. Clapperton, J.F., Piggott, J.R., Flavor characterization by trained and untrained assessors. Journal of Institute of Brewing 85 (1979), 275–277.
23. Delarue, J., The use of rapid sensory methods in R&D and research: An introduction. Delarue, J., Lawlor, J.B., Rogeaux, M., (eds.) Rapid sensory profiling techniques and related methods applications in new product development and consumer research, 2015, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge ISBN 978-1-78242-248-8.
24. Delarue, J., Sieffermann, J.-M., Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004), 383–392.
25. Delgado, C., Guinard, J.-X., How do consumer hedonic ratings for extra virgin olive oil relate to quality ratings by experts and descriptive analysis ratings?. Food Quality and Preference 22:2 (2011), 213–225.
26. Dugle, J., Note on ‘‘experts versus consumers: A comparison’’. Journal of Sensory Studies 12 (1997), 147–153.
27. Feria-Morales, A.M., Examining the case of green coffee to illustrate the limitations of grading systems/expert tasters in sensory evaluation for quality control. Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002), 355–367.
28. Fernández-Vázquez, R., Stinco, C.M., Hernanz, D., Heredia, F.J., Vicario, I.M., Colour training and colour differences thresholds in orange juice. Food Quality and Preference 30 (2013), 320–327.
29. Fiszman, S.M., Salgado, N., Orrego, C.E., Ares, G., Comparison of methods for generating sensory vocabulary with consumers: A case study with two types of satiating foods. Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015), 111–118.
30. Frijters, J.E.R., Functional measurement in the study of mixture percepts. Chemical Senses 18 (1993), 93–100.
31. Guerrero, L., Gou, P., Arnau, J., Descriptive analysis of toasted almonds: A comparison between expert and semitrained assessors. Journal of Sensory Studies 12 (1997), 39–54.
32. Hough, G., Experts versus consumers: A critique. Journal of Sensory Studies 13 (1998), 285–289.
33. Husson, F., Le Dien, S., Pagès, J., Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001), 291–296.
34. Ishii, R., Kawaguchi, H., O'Mahony, M., Rousseau, B., Relating consumer and trained panels’ discriminative sensitivities using vanilla flavoured ice cream as medium. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007), 89–96.
35. Jaeger, S.R., Beresford, M.K., Hunter, D.C., Alcaire, F., Castura, J.C., Ares, G., Does a familiarization step influence results from a TCATA task?. Food Quality and Preference 55 (2017), 91–97.
36. Jaeger, S.R., Chheang, S.L., Jin, D., Bava, C.M., Gimenez, A., Vidal, L., et al. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Quality and Preference 30 (2013), 56–67.
37. Jaeger, S.R., Hort, J., Porcherot, G., Ares, G., Pecore, S., MacFie, H.J.H., Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting. Food Quality and Preference 56 (2017), 301–309.
38. Jaeger, S.R., Wakeling, I.N., MacFie, H.J.H., Behavioural extensions to preference mapping: The role of synthesis. Food Quality and Preference 11 (2000), 349–359.
39. Jeong, Y.N., Kang, B.A., Jeong, M.J., Song, M.J., Hautus, M.J., Lee, H.S., Sensory discrimination by consumers of multiple stimuli from a reference: Stimulus configuration in A-Not AR and constant-ref. duo-trio superior to triangle and unspecified tetrad?. Food Quality and Preference 47 (2016), 10–22.
40. Kinner, Julia, Bongartz, Annette (2015). Slow or fast thinkers?: Cognitive reflection types and their ability to discriminate in consumer tests. In: Oral presentation, 11th pangborn sensory science symposium, Gotheborg, Sweden.
41. Köster, E.P., The psychology of food choice: Some encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference 14 (2003), 359–373.
42. 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 15 (2004), 341–348.
43. Lawless, H.T., Flavor description of white wine by ‘‘expert’’ and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science 49 (1984), 120–123.
44. Lawless, H.T., Heymann, H., Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices. 2nd ed., 2010, Springer, New York.
45. Lee, H.S., van Hout, D., O'Mahony, M., Sensory difference tests for margarine: A comparison of R-Indices derived from ranking and A-Not A methods considering response bias and cognitive strategies. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007), 675–680.
46. Lelièvre, M., Chollet, S., Abdi, H., Valentin, D., What is the validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008), 697–703.
47. Liu, J., Schou Grønbeck, M., Di Monaco, R., Giacalone, D., Bredie, W., Performance of Flash Profile and Napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine. Food Quality and Preference 48 (2016), 41–49.
48. Meilgaard, M., Civille, G.V., Carr, B.T., Sensory evaluation techniques. 3rd ed., 1999, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
49. Meiselman, H.L., The future in sensory/consumer research: Evolving to a better science. Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013), 208–214.
50. Mörlein, D., Boar taint: The sensory perspective - Olfactory perception, consumer acceptance and trained sensory panel evaluation of boar taint. Zuchtungskunde 84 (2012), 427–438.
51. Moskowitz, H.R., Experts versus consumers: A comparison. Journal of Sensory Studies 11 (1996), 19–37.
52. Moskowitz, H.R., Muñoz, A.M., Gacula, M.C., Viewpoints and controversies in sensory science and consumer product testing. 2003, Food & Nutrition Press, Trumbull, Connecticut.
53. Moussaoui, K.A., Varela, P., Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010), 1088–1099.
54. Muñoz, A.M., Importance, types and applications of consumer data relationships. Muñoz, A.M., (eds.) ASTM Manual 30. Relating consumer, descriptive and laboratory data to better understand consumer responses, 1997, ASTM Press, West Conshohocken, Penn.
55. Murray, J.M., Delahunty, C.M., Baxter, I.A., Descriptive analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 34 (2001), 461–471.
56. Noë, A., O'Regan, J.K., Perception, Attention and the Grand Illusion. Psyche, 6(15), 2000.
57. O'Mahony, M., Psychophysical aspects of sensory analysis of dairy products: A critique. Journal of Dairy Science 62 (1979), 1954–1962.
58. O'Mahony, M., Sensory measurement in food science—fitting methods to goals. Food Technology 49 (1995), 72–82.
59. Parr, W.V., Heatherbell, D., White, K.G., Demystifying wine expertise: Olfactory threshold, perceptual skill and semantic memory in expert and novice wine judges. Chemical Senses 27 (2002), 747–755.
60. Peron, R.M., Allen, G.L., Attempts to train novices for beer flavor discrimination: A matter of taste. The Journal of General Psychology 115 (1988), 403–418.
61. Peterson, E., Deary, I.J., Examining wholistic-analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Personality and Individual Differences 41:1 (2006), 3–14.
62. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Spence, C., Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015), 165–179.
63. Ramírez, G., Hough, G., Contarini, A., Influence of temperature and light exposure on sensory shelf-life of a commercial sunflower oil. Journal of Food Quality 24 (2007), 195–204.
64. Risvik, E., McEwan, J.A., Rodbotten, M., Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 8 (1997), 63–71.
65. Roberts, A.K., Vickers, Z.M., A comparison of trained and untrained judges, evaluation of sensory attribute intensities and liking of Cheddar cheeses. Journal of Sensory Studies 9 (1994), 1–20.
66. Rousseau, B., Sensory discrimination testing and consumer relevance. Food Quality and Preference 43 (2015), 122–125.
67. Saint-Eve, A., Lenfant, F., Teillet, E., Pineau, N., & Martin, N. (2011). Impact of panel training, attribute list, type of response and dominance definition on TDS response. In: Poster presentation at the 9th pangborn sensory science symposium, Toronto, Canada.
68. Sawyer, F.M., Cardello, A.V., Prell, P.A., Consumer evaluation of the sensory properties of fish. Journal of Sensory Studies 53 (1988), 12–18.
69. Schifferestein, H.N.J., Cognitive factors affecting taste intensity judgements. Food Quality and Preference 7 (1996), 167–175.
70. Sloman, S., The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119 (1996), 30–52.
71. Solomon, G.E.A., Psychology of novice and expert wine talk. American Journal of Psychology 109:4 (1990), 495–517.
72. Stone, H., Alternative methods of sensory testing: Advantages and disadvantages. Delarue, J., Lawlor, J.B., Rogeaux, M., (eds.) Rapid sensory profiling techniques and related methods applications in new product development and consumer research, 2015, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge ISBN 978-1-78242-248-8.
73. Stone, H., Sidel, J.L., Sensory evaluation practices. 3rd ed., 2004, Academic Press, San Diego.
74. Teillet, E., Schlich, P., Urbano, C., Cordelle, S., Guichard, E., Sensory methodologies and the taste of water. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010), 967–976.
75. Torri, L., Dinnella, C., Recchia, A., Naes, T., Tuorila, H., Monteleone, E., Projective Mapping for interpreting wine aroma differences as perceived by naïve and experienced assessors. Food Quality and Preference 29:1 (2013), 6–15.
76. Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., Abdi, H., Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 47 (2012), 1563–1578.
77. van't Riet, J., Sijtsema, S.J., Dagevos, H., de Bruijin, G.J., The importance of habits in eating behaviour. An overview and recommendations for future research. Appetite 57 (2011), 585–596.
78. Varela, P., Ares, G., Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 48 (2012), 893–908.
79. Varela, P., Vidal, L., Antúnez, L., Silva-Cadena, R., Giménez, A. & Ares, G. (2014) What is behind a napping test? Cognitive aspects of holistic approaches. In: Oral presentation, 6th European conference in sensory and consumer research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
80. Veinand, B., Godefroy, C., Adam, C., Delarue, J., Highlight of important product characteristics for consumers. Comparison of three sensory descriptive methods performed by consumers. Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011), 474–485.
81. Veramendi, M., Herencia, P., Ares, G., Perfume odor categorization: To what extent trained assessors and consumer agree?. Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013), 76–89.
82. Vidal, L., Cadena, R.S., Ábalos, R.A., Gómez, B., Giménez, A., Varela, P., et al. Assessment of global and individual reproducibility of projective mapping with consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2013), 74–87.
83. Vidal, L., Jaeger, S.R., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Ares, G., Product spaces derived from projective mapping and CATA questions: Influence of replicated assessments and increased number of study participants. Journal of Sensory Studies 31 (2016), 373–381.
84. Vidal, L., Silva Cadena, R., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Varela, P., Ares, G., Stability of sample configurations from projective mapping: How many consumers are necessary?. Food Quality and Preference 34 (2014), 79–87.
85. Wolters, C.J., Allchurch, E.M., Effect of training procedure on the performance of descriptive panels. Food Quality and Preference 5 (1994), 203–214.
86. Worch, T., Lê, S., Punter, P., How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010), 309–318.
87. Zamora, M.C., Guirao, M., Performance comparison between trained assessors and wine experts using specific sensory attributes. Journal of Sensory Studies 19 (2004), 530–545.
88. Vidal, L., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Varela, P., Deliza, R., Ares, G., Can consumer segmentation in projective mapping contribute to a better understanding of consumer perception?. Food Quality and Preference 47 (2016), 64–72.