Next Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Properties of Encapsulated Antimicrobial Natural Plant Products for Ready-to-Eat Carrots
Previous Article in Journal
Consumer Preferences and Sensory Profile Related to the Physico-Chemical Properties and Texture of Different Maize Tortillas Types
Open AccessArticle

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

1
Department of Food Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, Kirstinebjergvej 10, DK-5792 Aarslev, Denmark
2
Department of Food Science and Sensory Evaluation Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA 16802, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2019, 8(11), 534; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110534
Received: 30 September 2019 / Revised: 27 October 2019 / Accepted: 30 October 2019 / Published: 1 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Sensory and Consumer Sciences)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: sensory descriptive analysis; panel performance; training; Feedback Calibration Method; beer sensory descriptive analysis; panel performance; training; Feedback Calibration Method; beer
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Elgaard, L.; Mielby, L.A.; Hopfer, H.; Byrne, D.V. A Comparison of Two Sensory Panels Trained with Different Feedback Calibration Range Specifications via Sensory Description of Five Beers. Foods 2019, 8, 534.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop