Premium
Use of experienced panelists and the projective mapping task in comparison to trained panelists and naïve consumers
Author(s) -
Morin Maude,
Hayward Lydia,
McSweeney Matthew B.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of sensory studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.61
H-Index - 53
eISSN - 1745-459X
pISSN - 0887-8250
DOI - 10.1111/joss.12463
Subject(s) - psychology , task (project management) , product (mathematics) , applied psychology , population , social psychology , mathematics , medicine , engineering , geometry , environmental health , systems engineering
Projective mapping (PM) is rapid sensory method that is becoming more popular among sensory scientists to obtain general product descriptions. This study compares the results of a descriptive analysis panel completed by trained panelists to the results of a PM task completed by experienced panelists ( n = 22) and naïve consumers ( n = 79), using cookies made with alternative grains as a model. The experienced panelists in this trial were considered as those who have experience with the PM task; however, they do not experience with the products being tested. There was no correlation between the naïve consumers and experienced panelists (RV = 0.297). The RV coefficient between the experienced panelists and the trained panelists was 0.665, indicating a high similarity. These results indicate that experience with the sensory task has drastic effects on the panelists' evaluations. Future work needs to explore when experienced panelists are the most suitable group of assessors to be used. Practical applications Experienced panelists are panelists who have extensive knowledge and experience with a particular sensory method. However, in this trial, they do not possess knowledge or training about the products being assessed. This study investigates how experienced panelists performing the PM task compare to naïve consumers and trained panelists. There was no correlation between the naïve consumers and the experienced panelists; however, there was a correlation between the trained and experienced panelists. Further examination is necessary; however, research may indicate that when time, resources, or product is limited, experienced panelists may be a good surrogate population for trained panelists.