Effect of Product Involvement on Panels' Vocabulary Generation, Attribute Identification, and Sample Configurations in Beer.

Elgaard Elgaard,Heymann Heymann,Byrne Byrne,Mielby Mielby

doi:10.3390/foods8100488

Elgaard Elgaard, Heymann Heymann + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8100488

Copy DOI

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two semi-trained panels with different degrees of self-reported beer involvement in terms of beer consumption pattern. The two panels were beer non-drinkers (indicating willingness to taste beer) and craft-style beer drinkers. Eleven modified beer samples were evaluated during three separate tasks by both panels. The tasks were (1) a vocabulary generation on a sample level, (2) an attribute identification task with a list of attributes to choose from, and (3) a descriptive analysis. The performance of the two panels was evaluated and compared using three parameters, as follows: Descriptive similarity, attribute knowledge similarity, and perceptual similarity. The results showed that the craft-style beer drinkers generated the most precise vocabulary and correctly identified more attributes, compared to the beer non-drinkers. Furthermore, the sample sensory spaces generated by the two panels were different before the training period, but were perceptually similar post training. To conclude, the beer consumption pattern influenced all aspects of panel performance before training, with the craft-style panel performing better than the non-drinkers panel. However, the panels’ performance became more similar after a short period of training sessions.

Highlights

Many different methods and approaches exist within the field of sensory science
The correspondence analysis (Figure 2) based on the identification test without a list (Figure 1, correspondence analysis (Figure based on the test has without a list (Figure task 1)The shows a clear separation between the2)
Andindicated sour) and more abstracthad terms like bland, andcraft-style other (i.e.,panel dark, This that the panels different sensorymouthfeel descriptive abilities, with the aromatic, that the panels had different sensory descriptive withthe the being more unusual). Precise in This theirindicated vocabulary generation and thereby better at describing andabilities, identifying craft‐style panel being more precise in their vocabulary generation and thereby better at describing flavors in the beer samples

Summary

Introduction

Many different methods and approaches exist within the field of sensory science. sensory descriptive analysis (DA) remains an essential and crucial method in the toolbox of a sensory scientist, when dealing with e.g., product development or quality control [1,2,3,4]. The drawbacks of DA are that it is a slow and cost intensive method, which has resulted in the recent focus on so-called rapid methods [5,6,7]. The shift in focus has caused a decrease in research on the methodology of DA methods during the last decades [8], even though validation and improvement of the DA method is still necessary today [1,4]. An extensive amount of research has been done comparing the performance of panelists with different degrees of sensory training in both DA and rapid methods [9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The results of these studies show that the generated sensory configurations are somewhat similar, but that sensory training increases the panels’ ability to discriminate verbally between the products.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion