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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)


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
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-7
JournalFood Quality and Preference
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 1997

Bibliographical 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.
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.
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-


Dive into the research topics of 'Sensory analysis and Panellist Motivation: Can Computers Make a Difference?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this