Irish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Food Science 2009-Sep

Sensitivity comparison of sequential monadic and side-by-side presentation protocols in affective consumer testing.

Ní féidir ach le húsáideoirí cláraithe ailt a aistriú
Logáil Isteach / Cláraigh
Sábháiltear an nasc chuig an gearrthaisce
Jessica M Colyar
Dennis L Eggett
Frost M Steele
Michael L Dunn
Lynn V Ogden

Keywords

Coimriú

The relative sensitivity of side-by-side and sequential monadic consumer liking protocols was compared. In the side-by-side evaluation, all samples were presented at once and evaluated together 1 characteristic at a time. In the sequential monadic evaluation, 1 sample was presented and evaluated on all characteristics, then returned before panelists received and evaluated another sample. Evaluations were conducted on orange juice, frankfurters, canned chili, potato chips, and applesauce. Five commercial brands, having a broad quality range, were selected as samples for each product category to assure a wide array of consumer liking scores. Without their knowledge, panelists rated the same 5 retail brands by 1 protocol and then 3 wk later by the other protocol. For 3 of the products, both protocols yielded the same order of overall liking. Slight differences in order of overall liking for the other 2 products were not significant. Of the 50 pairwise overall liking comparisons, 44 were in agreement. The different results obtained by the 2 protocols in order of liking and significance of paired comparisons were due to the experimental variation and differences in sensitivity. Hedonic liking scores were subjected to statistical power analyses and used to calculate minimum number of panelists required to achieve varying degrees of sensitivity when using side-by-side and sequential monadic protocols. In most cases, the side-by-side protocol was more sensitive, thus providing the same information with fewer panelists. Side-by-side protocol was less sensitive in cases where sensory fatigue was a factor.

Bí ar ár
leathanach facebook

An bunachar luibheanna míochaine is iomláine le tacaíocht ón eolaíocht

  • Oibreacha i 55 teanga
  • Leigheasanna luibhe le tacaíocht ón eolaíocht
  • Aitheantas luibheanna de réir íomhá
  • Léarscáil GPS idirghníomhach - clibeáil luibheanna ar an láthair (ag teacht go luath)
  • Léigh foilseacháin eolaíochta a bhaineann le do chuardach
  • Cuardaigh luibheanna míochaine de réir a n-éifeachtaí
  • Eagraigh do chuid spéiseanna agus fanacht suas chun dáta leis an taighde nuachta, trialacha cliniciúla agus paitinní

Clóscríobh symptom nó galar agus léigh faoi luibheanna a d’fhéadfadh cabhrú, luibh a chlóscríobh agus galair agus comharthaí a úsáidtear ina choinne a fheiceáil.
* Tá an fhaisnéis uile bunaithe ar thaighde eolaíoch foilsithe

Google Play badgeApp Store badge