A Comparison of Two Sensory Panels Trained with Different Feedback Calibration Range Specifications via Sensory Description of Five Beers.

Line Elgaard,Derek V Byrne,Helene Hopfer,Line A Mielby

doi:10.3390/foods8110534

Line Elgaard, Derek V Byrne + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110534

Copy DOI

Abstract

Feedback on panel performance is traditionally provided by the panel leader, following an evaluation session. However, a novel method for providing immediate feedback to panelists was proposed, the Feedback Calibration Method (FCM). The aim of the current study was to compare the performance of two panels trained by using FCM with two different approaches for ranges calibration, namely self-calibrated and fixed ranges. Both panels were trained using FCM for nine one-hour sessions, followed by a sensory evaluation of five beer samples (in replicates). Results showed no difference in sample positioning in the sensory space by the two panels. Furthermore, the panels’ discriminability was also similar, while the self-calibrated panel had the highest repeatability. The results from the average distance from target and standard deviations showed that the self-calibrated panel had the lowest distance from target and standard deviation throughout all sessions. However, the decrease in average distance from target and standard deviations over training sessions was similar among panels, meaning that the increase in performance was similar. The fact that both panels had a similar increase in performance and yielded similar sensory profiles indicates that the choice of target value calibration method is unimportant. However, the use of self-calibrated ranges could introduce an issue with the progression of the target scores over session, which is why the fixed target ranges should be applied, if available.

Highlights

Sensory descriptive analysis (DA) is an essential and crucial tool in the field of sensory science [1,2].Since its invention in the 1940s, descriptive analysis has evolved into several different types of sensory descriptive profiling methods [3,4]
The Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) plot shows that all five beer samples were well discriminated from each other by both panels, indicating that both panels could distinguish between the beers
The choice of target value calibration method did not influence the positioning of the samples in the sensory space, as both sensory panels generated very similar sensory profiles

Summary

Introduction

Since its invention in the 1940s, descriptive analysis has evolved into several different types of sensory descriptive profiling methods [3,4]. Common to all methods are vocabulary generation and training of the DA panel. Regardless of the variation, a DA panel requires an extensive amount of training to become a reliable sensory instrument. Studies have shown that different factors related to the training step can influence the performance of a sensory panel [9,10,11,12,13,14,15]; these include, among others, the panel’s sensory experience, product knowledge, and product involvement. During DA training, a common vocabulary and

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion