Performance Comparison between Trained and Untrained Sensory Panels
Keywords:
curdled cheese, sensory profile, trained panels, untrained panels, PCAAbstract
We used two trained panels and four untrained panels for the comparison of the performance between the same. Each trained panel consisted of six judges while each untrained panel consisted of 100 consumers. The sensory attributes that were evaluated by the panels were the color white,grainy texture to the touch and soft to the touch, the smell of rennet, salty, crumbly to the palate, soft to the palate and the aroma of serum. For the evaluation of discernment, different models of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were applied.To review the consensus between the two types of panels,the permutation test (Rc) was used. The comparison of the products and attributes in the sensory space was evaluated through the use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and the overall correlations were measured by the correlation vector (Rvglobal). The results of ANOVA showed that the trained panels were discriminatingin seven attributes while untrained panels were discriminating in six attributes. The Rc showed a consensus among trained and untrained panels of 0.866 and 0.807 values respectively. The PCA revealed similarities between the types of panels for the positioning of cheeses and attributes in the sensory space. The Rvglobal was 0,861 revealing that the configurations between the panel types were similar. In conclusion, the sensory profiles between trained and untrained panels were similar.
References
Issanchou S, Schlich P, Lesschaeve I. Sensory analysis: methodological aspects relevant to the study of cheese. La lait. 1997; 77: 5-12.
Sulmont C, Lesschaeve I, Sauvageot F, Issanchou S. Comparative training procedures to learn odor descriptors: effects on profiling performance. Journal Sensory Studies 1999; 14: 467-490.
Sinesio F, Guerreo L, Romero A, Moneta E, Nombrad J. Sensory evaluation of walnut an interlaboratory study. Food Science Technology International 2001; 7(1): 37-47.
Husson F, Pages J. Comparison of sensory profiles done by trained and untrained juries: Methodology and Results. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003; 18: 453-464.
Husson F, Le-Dien S, Pages J. Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 2001; 12(5-7): 291-296.
Lelievre M, Chollet 5, Abdi H, Valentin D. What is validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19: 697-703.
Worch T, Le S, Punter P. How reliable are consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference 2010; 21(3): 309-318.
Hirst D, Muir D, Naes T. Definition of the sensory of hard cheese: a collaborative study between Scottish and Norwegian panels. International Dairy Journal 1994; 4(8): 743-761.
Pages J, Husson F. Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles: methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 2001; 12: 297-309.
Le S, Pages J, Husson F. Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: application to a cross-cultural study. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19(2): 179-184.
Barcenas P, Perez-Elortondo FJ, Albisu M. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: a study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Research International 2004; 37(7): 723-729.
Drake 5, Lopetcharat K, Clark 5, Kwak H, Lee 5, et al. Mapping differences in consumer's perception of sharp cheddar cheese in the United State. Sensory and Food Quality 2009; 74(6): S276-5285.
Drake SL, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA. Comparison of two methods to explore consumer preferences for cottage cheese. Journal of Dairy Science 2009; 92(12): 5883-5897.
AFNOR. Analyse Sensorielle - Methodologie. Recherche de descripteurs por ('elaboration d' un Profil Sensoriel 1995; ISO 11035.
Stone H, Sidel J, Oliver S, Woolsey S, Singleton R Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology 1974; 28: 24-34.
Mazzucchelli R, Guinard J. Comparison of monadic and simultaneous sample presentation modes in descriptive analysis of milk chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 1999; 14(2): 235-248.
Pages J, Bertrand C, Ali R, Husson F, Le S. Sensory analysis comparison of eight biscuits by french and pakistani panels. Journal of Sensory Studies 2007; 22: 665-686
Nogueira H, Tinet C, Curt C, Trystram G, Hossenlop J. Using the internet for descriptive sensory analysis: formation training and follow-up of a taste panel over the web. Journal Sensory Studies 2006; 21: 180-202.
Wu W, Guo Q, Jong S, Massart D. Randomization test for the number o dimensions of the group average space in generalized procrustes analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2002; 13: 191-200.
Xiong R, Blot K, Meullenet J, Dessirier J. Permutation test or Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19: 146-155.
L' Hermier des Plantes H, Thiebaut B. Etude de la pluviosite au moyen de la methode S.T.A.T.I.S. Revue de Statistique Appliquee 1977; 25(2): 57-81.
Le-Dien S, Pages J. Analyse factorielle multiple hierarchique. Revue de Statistique Appliquee 2003; 50(2): 47-73.
Faye P, Bremaud D, Teillet E, Courcoux P, Giboreau A, et al. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2006; 17(7-8): 604-614
Mendia C, Larrayoz P, Ordonez A, Ibanez F, Torre P. Monitoring taste panel efficiency during evaluation of the sensory quality of Roncal cheese. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003; 18: 91-102.
Burke B, Spooner J, Hegarty P. Sensory testing of beers: An inter-laboratory sensory trial. Journal Institute Brew 1997; 103: 15-19.
Sinesio F, Risvik E, Rodbotten M. Evaluation of panelist performance in descriptive profiling of rancid sausages: A multivariate study. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990; 5: 33-32.
Barcenas P, Perez J, Albisu M. Selection and screening of a descriptive panel for ewes milk chesses sensory profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies 2000; 15: 79-99.
Martin N, Molimard P, Spinnler H, Schlich P. Comparison of odour sensory profiles performed by two independent trained panels following the same descriptive analysis procedures. Food Quality and Preference 2000; 11: 487-495.
Gómez T, Hernández M, López J, Santiago C, Ramón L, et. al. Caracterización sensorial del queso fresco "cuajada" en tres localidades de Oaxaca. México: diferencias en la percepcion sensorial. Revista Venezolana de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos 2010; 1(2): 127-140.
Prescott J. Comparison of taste perceptions and preferences of Japanese and Australian consumers: overview and implications for cross-cultural sensory research. Food Quality and Preference 1998; 9(6): 393-402.
Resurreccion A. Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Science 2003; 66: 11-20.
Van Rijswijk W, Frewer L, Menozzi D, Faioli G. Consumer perception of traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19(5): 452-464.
Verbeke W. Consumer acceptance of functionalfoods: socio-demographic. cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Quality and Preference 2005; 16(1): 45-57.
Gellynck X, Kuhne B, Van Bockstaele F, Van de Walle D, Dewettinck. K. Consumer perception of bread quality. Appetite 2009; 53(1): 16-23.
McEwan J, Hunter E, Van L, Lea P Proficiency testing sensory profile panels: measuring panel performance. Food Quality and Preference 2002; 13: 181-190.
Phu V, Valentin D, Husson, F, Dacremont C. Cultural differences in food and preference: Contrasting Vietnamese and French panellists on soy yogurts. Food Quality and Preference 2010; 21: 602-610.
Cartier R, RytzA, Lecomte F, PobreteJ, Krystlik E, et al. Sorting procedures as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Quality and Preference 2006; 17: 562-571.
Faye P, Bremaud, D, Duran P, Courcoux A, Giboreau H, et al. Perceptive free sorting with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings and tool for sensory segmentations of consumer. Food Quality and Preference 2004; 15: 781-792.
Proceso de registro de usuario 
