COMPARISON OF DISCRIMINATION ABILITY BETWEEN A PANEL OF BLIND ASSESSORS AND A PANEL OF SIGHTED ASSESSORS

The objective of this work was to compare a panel of blind assessors with one of sighted assessors in the discrimination of food products. Each panel had 20 screened and trained assessors. Five commercial food products were used: crackers, liver paste, powdered orange juice mix, Reggiano cheese and yogurt. Slight flavor and/or texture modifications were introduced for adequate discrimination difficulty. Each pair of products was tested by both panels using the triangle test and a scaled difference from control test. Numbers of correct answers for the triangle test were similar for both panels. There were minor differences between the panels in the difference from control test, due to the sighted panel having more training in the use of the scale. Overall the panels of trained blind and sighted assessors were equivalent in their performance.     

TRAINING, VALIDATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A PANEL TO EVALUATE THE TEXTURE OF DRY BEANS (PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.)

The inclusion of dry beans in diets has clear health benefits. However, consumers in developed countries mainly choose beans for their sensory qualities, especially for their texture. This article describes the constitution, training and validation of a panel of judges to evaluate the texture of dry beans. The judges were trained in the perception of different textures, analyzed a wide range of beans and selected seed-coat roughness, seed-coat perceptibility and creaminess/mealiness of the cotyledon as the main attributes to be scored. After training, the panel was capable of discriminating between different varieties of beans and even between beans of the same variety grown at different locations. The analysis of the behavior of the panel in a standard tasting session 2 years after its formation showed that periodic inclusion of samples from the extremes of the scales for the attributes during tasting sessions was sufficient to keep the panel trained.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This article could serve as a guide for the training of sensory panels to evaluate the texture of dry beans. It describes the selection of the attributes on which the analysis is based, references for the extreme values of the attributes and how to train the panel. It also provides a practical example of the analysis of the behavior of the panel some time after training.     

PERCEPTION OF TASTE MIXTURES BY EXPERIENCED AND NOVICE ASSESSORS1

The total intensity, sweetness, and acidity of sucrose/citric acid mixtures were judged by two types of taste panel: experienced assessors, most of whom had had many years of experience in sensory evaluation; and novice assessors, none of whom had previously taken part in a taste experiment. In other respects the experimental conditions remained almost constant. There was good correspondence between the two panels, particularly for judgments of total intensity, indicating that novice and experienced assessors evaluate taste mixtures in the same way. However, there was also an indication that experience on sensory panels may attenuate taste suppression, the suppression of acidity by sweetness being less pronounced for the experienced panel than for the novice panel. The implications for mixture perception are noted.     

RELIABILITY OF SENSORY ASSESSORS: ISSUES OF COMPLEXITY

The objective of this study was to investigate whether the sensory performance of assessors in a sensory panel maybe explained by complexity of evaluated product. We aimed to investigate whether we could observe a decline in sensory performance when increasing the complexity of the product. The products increased in number of constituents from mixtures of sucrose, sodium chloride, citric acid and caffeine in water, to the foods ice tea and tomato soup constituting different levels of the same substances. Candidates who succeeded evaluating one product were not always successful evaluating others. Few subjects were successful in everything. The conclusion was that there is only minor systematic decline with increasing complexity of products. The authors emphasize that definition of complexity involves more than just counting number of constituents and taste sensations, and suggest that minor differences in the task given to the assessor might explain different performances.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Practical use of the research presented in the present paper is in a sensory evaluation context. It is important for the users of sensory data to find out how the profiling should be organized to achieve optimum output, and in specific, the need for extensive training when dealing with a more complex product. The present study hypothesized that sensory assessors would have more difficulties evaluating a more complex product. However, the results showed that panel leaders should be more concerned with the task variables in the sensory evaluation. Even a minor shift in task variables had a stronger impact on the performance and reliability of the assessors than increasing number of constituents and/or stimuli sensations of the product. This study did not demonstrate a need for extensive training when dealing with a more complex product as hypothesized.     

CONFIDENCE ELLIPSES APPLIED TO THE COMPARISON OF SENSORY PROFILES

Our experiment involved seven panels and six chocolates – five dark chocolates and one milk chocolate. The aim of the study was to compare the sensory profiles of the chocolates. A natural question to ask is “Did the panelists detect any differences among the five dark chocolates or did they systematically contrast them with the milk chocolate?” The scatter plot of the chocolates obtained by principal component analysis was useless to answer that question, because of the proximity of the points. To overcome that, we used confidence ellipses calculated using bootstrap. The originality of the study lies in the fact that we applied those ellipses to hierarchical multiple factor analysis (HMFA): among the seven panels, six were composed of trained professionals and the last one was composed of untrained students, and through that method, we managed to compare the two types of panels and balance the role of each trained panel. HMFA provides in a single scatter plot a representation of the six chocolates for each panel, the trained panels and all the panels. Confidence ellipses around each chocolate show that the combined panels – the six trained panels and also the untrained panel – differentiate the five dark chocolates. They also show how much larger the untrained panel's variability is than that of the trained panels, and how comparable are the trained panels' variability to each other.