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.     

MULTIDIMENSIONAL SORTING, SIMILARITY SCALING AND FREE-CHOICE PROFILING OF GRAPE JELLIES

The sensory data from three different methods, multidimensional sorting, similarity scaling, and free-choice profiling were compared using ten commercial grape jellies as a model system. Without any prior training, the overall similarities/dissimilarities between stimuli were judged using both multidimensional sorting and pair-wise scaling and the sensory attributes were rated using free-choice profiling by different panels. A two-dimensional stimulus configuration best represented the data from each of the three methods. The underlying dimensions of stimulus space were identified from free-choice profiling data and also explained some background variables. The texture, sweetness, sourness, grape flavor and color contributed to both dimensions. All three methods were very similar in describing the most important differences among stimuli as suggested by the highly significant correlation between their first dimensions. The Procrustes analysis coupled with permutation tests, as well as RV coefficient, indicated that similarity scaling and free-choice profiling reached maximum consensus, whereas multidimensional sorting shared slightly lesser consensus with the other two methods.     

EVALUATION OF WINE QUALITY USING A SMALL-PANEL HEDONIC SCALING METHOD

A hedonic scoring method for evaluating wines with a small panel was examined for reliability, effects of training level and agreement with a traditional 20-point scoring technique. The method was found to differentiate among qualities of 14 domestic Sauvignon Blanc wines with good reliability. Four panels were tested, three with a high degree of experience in wine judging and a fourth consisting of fine wine consumers with no special training. The three experienced panels agreed well about the wines' quality scores. Mean panel scores were less highly correlated (although still positive) with the untrained panel, which showed higher variability and lower reliability. Mean scores from the hedonic method were correlated at r =+0.94 with mean scores from a 20-point quality judging procedure. The small panel hedonic method is suitable for generating quality scores for consumer guidance in large scale wine surveys, as are commonly found in popular wine periodicals.     

LOGARITHMIC TRANSFORMATION OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION DATA AND COMPARISONS OF SCALING METHODS

Recent studies comparing magnitude estimation to other scaling methods have been criticized for failure to submit the data to logarithmic transformation before statistical analysis, a procedure which can improve the ability of magnitude estimation scaling to differentiate among products. Data from one of these studies was available for re-analysis, which was conducted both with and without logarithmic transformation of magnitude estimation, category scales and line scales. The ability of magnitude estimation to differentiate among products was improved by log transformation, while the other methods were not. Improvements were associated in pan with reductions in positive skew and improved approximation of the normal distribution. In spite of this improvement, magnitude estimation remained slightly inferior to the other methods especially in the hands of an untrained consumer sample.     

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.     

COMPARISON OF RATING SCALES: SENSITIVITY, REPLICATES AND RELATIVE MEASUREMENT

The relative sensitivities of four scaling methods were assessed in central location tests with untrained judges. The scales included category scales, line scales, magnitude estimation, and a hybrid of the line and category scales. Approximate parity was observed among category scales, line scales and the hybrid scale in their ability to differentiate small physical differences. Magnitude estimation was used as efficiently as the other methods by a college population, but less efficiently by a heterogeneous sample of consumers. Judges used the scales with greater accuracy as they became familiar with the range of products to be judged. In spite of relatively small physical differences, subjects used wide ranges of the scales, supporting the view that rating scales are relative, not absolute, measuring instruments.     

COMPARISON OF SENSORY PROFILES DONE BY TRAINED AND UNTRAINED JURIES: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

We compare the sensory profiles of six dark chocolates done by two types of juries: some trained juries and an untrained jury. Six laboratories, each one made up of 10 to 15 judges, are regarded as trained juries since the assessors were well trained before the evaluation of the products. The second type of jury is composed of only one panel of 29 untrained assessors and this jury is named the untrained jury. Fourteen attributes were evaluated and analyses of variance have been carried out by attribute to compare the sensory profiles of the six chocolates done by the trained juries and by the untrained jury. These analyses of variance show that the two types of juries give similar sensory profiles and that the few differences are mainly due to different ways of using the scale.     

THE DISRIMINATIVE EFFICIENCY OF COMMON SCALING METHODS

Four types of rating scales, nine-point category scales, line marking, magnitude estimation, and a hybrid of the category and line scale, were employed to assess visual, tactile and olfactory characteristics of products by consumers. The scales were compared for their ability to discriminate differences among products, for variability, for reliability, and for ease of use. All methods were able to generate highly significant differences among products. However, a modest advantage for category scales was observed in almost all comparisons.