Training techniques for uniform interpretation of attributes and sensory rating

Claire Sulmont-Rossé
UMR1129 FLAVIC, INRA, ENESAD, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France
 sulmont@dijon.inra.fr

The quantitative descriptive profile of food products or conventional profile is considered as one of the most complex sensory tasks. Indeed, panelists have to analyze their perception when tasting the product, verbalize them and quantify them relative to the product space under study. Besides its complexity, this method provides reliable results, providing that the panel has been properly selected and trained (Einstein, 1991). As selection and training require the investment of a lot of resources, I will try to give an overview on essential factors that should be taken into account to improve the efficiency of these steps.

Many recommendations are available in the literature to screen descriptive panelists (see for instance Meilgaard et al., 1991; ISO, 1993). A first part of my talk will be dedicated to the exploration of the relationship between selection tests and profiling performances. In fact, some links were observed between initial capabilities and profiling performances. For instance, the ability of panelists to discriminate among products may be linked to previous odor knowledge and to a good olfactory memory (Lesschaeve & Issanchou, 1996). Moreover, consistency seemed to be related to non sensory capabilities such as concentration.

In a second part of my talk, I will explore the impact of training condition on profiling performance. Training consists of vocabulary development and sensory concept alignment. In other words, the main objective of training is to obtain panelists agreement on vocabulary. It has been shown that training length and content may influence subsequent performances. For instance, sensory concept alignment seemed to be more efficient with tasting products than with qualitative standards (Sulmont et al., 1999).

Einstein M. A. (1991). Descriptive techniques and their hybridization. In Lawless H. T. & Klein B. P. (eds), Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods, New-York: Marcel Dekker, 317-338.
ISO (1993). Guide Général pour la Sélection, l’Entraînement et le Contrôle des Sujets. Partie I : Sujets Qualifiés, Paris: AFNOR.
Lesschaeve I. & Issanchou S. (1996). Could selection tests detect the future performance of descriptive panellists? Food Quality and Preference, 7, 177-183.
Meilgaard M., Civille G. V. & Carr B. T. (1991). Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Sulmont C., Lesschaeve I., Sauvageot F. & Issanchou S. (1999). Comparative training procedures to learn odor descriptors: effects on profiling performance. Journal of Sensory Studies, 14, 467-490.

Download presentation