Sensory analysis and Panellist Motivation: Can Computers Make a Difference?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The potential value of using computerised systems in sensoryanalysis is discussed in this preliminary study. This includedassessing the impact on panel motivation, and on theconsistency of responses made through a comparison ofmanual and computerised methods.Accuracy and consistency appeared to improve signi&antlyas the tests progressed, and on completing the session computeraccuracy was superior. Hedonic tests provided substantialvariation, although generally deviations in computer responseswere lower. The affective tests produced a more erraticresponse pattern, although this may have been expected, dueto the greater subjectivity involved.Finally, a focus group provided valuable reinforcement ofresults and clariJication of assessor preferences. The computerisedsensory system was unanimously preferred and mayprovide an effective tool in maintaining motivation levels.However, careful and consistent management is still requiredaifre sults are to be meaningful. Copyright 0 1996 ElsevierScience Ltd
LanguageEnglish
Pages1-7
JournalFood Quality and Preference
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1997

Fingerprint

reinforcement
subjectivity
management
Group

Cite this

@article{fca30fa2a0cc4542bcfcb6fdcb62bf60,
title = "Sensory analysis and Panellist Motivation: Can Computers Make a Difference?",
abstract = "The potential value of using computerised systems in sensoryanalysis is discussed in this preliminary study. This includedassessing the impact on panel motivation, and on theconsistency of responses made through a comparison ofmanual and computerised methods.Accuracy and consistency appeared to improve signi&antlyas the tests progressed, and on completing the session computeraccuracy was superior. Hedonic tests provided substantialvariation, although generally deviations in computer responseswere lower. The affective tests produced a more erraticresponse pattern, although this may have been expected, dueto the greater subjectivity involved.Finally, a focus group provided valuable reinforcement ofresults and clariJication of assessor preferences. The computerisedsensory system was unanimously preferred and mayprovide an effective tool in maintaining motivation levels.However, careful and consistent management is still requiredaifre sults are to be meaningful. Copyright 0 1996 ElsevierScience Ltd",
author = "Gillian Armstrong and Heather McIlveen-Farley and D McDowell and I Blair",
note = "Reference text: BSI. (BS 7183, 1989). British Standard Guide to the Design of Test Rooms for Sensory Analysis of Food. BSI, London. Durr, P. (1986). The human instrument in food science. Lebensmittel - Wisswnschraft und Technology, 10(4), 232-233. I.F.T. (1981). Sensory evaluation guides for testing food and beverage products. Food Technology, 35( 1 l), 50-59. King, A. J. and Morzenti, A. (1988). Response freedom in computerized and manual modes of sensory scoring. Food ‘Technology, 42 ( lo), 150- 160. Larmond, E. (1977). Laboratory Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Food. Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Ottawa, pp. 6-18. Lawless, H. T. and Claasen, M. R. (1993). Application of the central dogma in sensory evaluation. Food Technology, 47(6), 139-146. Lyon, D. H. (1986). Sensory analysis by computer. Food Manufacture, 61(11) , 40-42. McLellan, M. R. and Cash, J. N. (1983). Computerized sensory evaluation: a prototype data-collection system. Food Technology, 37(l), 97-99. O’Mahony, M. (1995). Sensory measurement in food science: fitting methods to goals. Food Technology, 49(4), 72-82. Penfield, M. P. and Campbell, A. M. (1990). Experimental Food Science. 3rd Edn. Academic Press Inc., London, pp. 52-72. Stone, Herbert and Sidel, Joel L. (1993). Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press Inc., California, pp. 202-242. Williams, A. A. and Brain, P. (1986). The scope of the microcomputer in sensory analysis. Chemistry and Industry, 17, 118- 122",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00001-8",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "Food Quality and Preference",
issn = "0950-3293",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

Sensory analysis and Panellist Motivation: Can Computers Make a Difference? / Armstrong, Gillian; McIlveen-Farley, Heather; McDowell, D; Blair, I.

In: Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1997, p. 1-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sensory analysis and Panellist Motivation: Can Computers Make a Difference?

AU - Armstrong, Gillian

AU - McIlveen-Farley, Heather

AU - McDowell, D

AU - Blair, I

N1 - Reference text: BSI. (BS 7183, 1989). British Standard Guide to the Design of Test Rooms for Sensory Analysis of Food. BSI, London. Durr, P. (1986). The human instrument in food science. Lebensmittel - Wisswnschraft und Technology, 10(4), 232-233. I.F.T. (1981). Sensory evaluation guides for testing food and beverage products. Food Technology, 35( 1 l), 50-59. King, A. J. and Morzenti, A. (1988). Response freedom in computerized and manual modes of sensory scoring. Food ‘Technology, 42 ( lo), 150- 160. Larmond, E. (1977). Laboratory Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Food. Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Ottawa, pp. 6-18. Lawless, H. T. and Claasen, M. R. (1993). Application of the central dogma in sensory evaluation. Food Technology, 47(6), 139-146. Lyon, D. H. (1986). Sensory analysis by computer. Food Manufacture, 61(11) , 40-42. McLellan, M. R. and Cash, J. N. (1983). Computerized sensory evaluation: a prototype data-collection system. Food Technology, 37(l), 97-99. O’Mahony, M. (1995). Sensory measurement in food science: fitting methods to goals. Food Technology, 49(4), 72-82. Penfield, M. P. and Campbell, A. M. (1990). Experimental Food Science. 3rd Edn. Academic Press Inc., London, pp. 52-72. Stone, Herbert and Sidel, Joel L. (1993). Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press Inc., California, pp. 202-242. Williams, A. A. and Brain, P. (1986). The scope of the microcomputer in sensory analysis. Chemistry and Industry, 17, 118- 122

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - The potential value of using computerised systems in sensoryanalysis is discussed in this preliminary study. This includedassessing the impact on panel motivation, and on theconsistency of responses made through a comparison ofmanual and computerised methods.Accuracy and consistency appeared to improve signi&antlyas the tests progressed, and on completing the session computeraccuracy was superior. Hedonic tests provided substantialvariation, although generally deviations in computer responseswere lower. The affective tests produced a more erraticresponse pattern, although this may have been expected, dueto the greater subjectivity involved.Finally, a focus group provided valuable reinforcement ofresults and clariJication of assessor preferences. The computerisedsensory system was unanimously preferred and mayprovide an effective tool in maintaining motivation levels.However, careful and consistent management is still requiredaifre sults are to be meaningful. Copyright 0 1996 ElsevierScience Ltd

AB - The potential value of using computerised systems in sensoryanalysis is discussed in this preliminary study. This includedassessing the impact on panel motivation, and on theconsistency of responses made through a comparison ofmanual and computerised methods.Accuracy and consistency appeared to improve signi&antlyas the tests progressed, and on completing the session computeraccuracy was superior. Hedonic tests provided substantialvariation, although generally deviations in computer responseswere lower. The affective tests produced a more erraticresponse pattern, although this may have been expected, dueto the greater subjectivity involved.Finally, a focus group provided valuable reinforcement ofresults and clariJication of assessor preferences. The computerisedsensory system was unanimously preferred and mayprovide an effective tool in maintaining motivation levels.However, careful and consistent management is still requiredaifre sults are to be meaningful. Copyright 0 1996 ElsevierScience Ltd

U2 - 10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00001-8

DO - 10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00001-8

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Food Quality and Preference

T2 - Food Quality and Preference

JF - Food Quality and Preference

SN - 0950-3293

IS - 1

ER -