COMPUTERIZED PANEL TRAINING: EFFECTS OF USING GRAPHIC FEEDBACK ON SCALE USAGE

A well-trained panel is a valuable tool for describing and quantifying characteristics of a food product. This research was undertaken to study the effects of feedback during panel training. A computerized system was designed using the Macintosh computer to gather data and provide panelists with individualized instruction and immediate graphic feedback. Two levels of feedback (with or without) were delivered to the panelists over a 2-week training period. Feedback consisted of correct response for discrimination testing and a graph displaying means and deviations for scaled data. Results showed an expansion in the use of the line scale and an increase in precision across trials. No notable change in magnitude estimation sample scores was observed across feedback conditions; however, deviations were lower following feedback. Although exposure/practice alone provided similar changes, further differences were affected with graphic feedback. Results suggested individualized computer assisted instruction with graphic feedback may provide an efficient and effective tool to complement existing panel training techniques.

[1]  PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF SENSORY PANELISTS , 1992 .

[2]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Handling individual differences between assessors in sensory profiling , 1990 .

[3]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  UNDERSTANDING DISCRIMINATION TESTS: A USER-FRIENDLY TREATMENT OF RESPONSE BIAS, RATING AND RANKING R-INDEX TESTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SIGNAL DETECTION , 1992 .

[4]  INFLUENCE OF COMPUTERIZED PANEL TRAINING ON CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS , 1994 .

[5]  C. L. Kuesten,et al.  Strategies toward the development of an expert system for sensory evaluation testing and database management , 1994 .

[6]  E. Chambers,et al.  EFFECTS OF TESTING EXPERIENCE ON PERFORMANCE OF TRAINED SENSORY PANELISTS , 1993 .

[7]  Vibeke Vestby.  CAD-CAM development in art and craft weaving: Experiences from integration in teaching and training in vocational and university level schools in Norway , 1990 .

[8]  L E Marks,et al.  Magnitude estimation and sensory matching , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  J. Piggott,et al.  FLAVOUR CHARACTERIZATION BY TRAINED AND UNTRAINED ASSESSORS , 1979 .

[11]  Margaret A. Brandt,et al.  Development of standard rating scales for mechanical parameters of texture and correlation between the objective and the sensory methods of texture evaluation , 1963 .

[12]  Timothy H. Sanders,et al.  Reducing the Noise Contained in Descriptive Sensory Data , 1993 .

[13]  Howard R. Moskowitz,et al.  MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION: NOTES ON WHAT, HOW, WHEN, AND WHY TO USE IT , 1977 .

[14]  Jay Liebowitz,et al.  Useful approach for evaluating expert systems , 1986 .

[15]  R. Mcbride,et al.  PERCEPTION OF TASTE MIXTURES BY EXPERIENCED AND NOVICE ASSESSORS1 , 1989 .

[16]  A. Kramer.  An analytical and integrative approach to sensory evaluation of foods , 1973 .

[17]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Improving Learner Performance with Computer Based Programs , 1990 .

[18]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Detection and interpretation of variation within and between assessors in sensory profiling , 1991 .

[19]  Einar Risvik,et al.  Sensory analysis: A view on the use of computers , 1989 .

[20]  Mina R. McDaniel,et al.  INFLUENCE OF PANEL INCONSISTENCY ON THE OUTCOME OF SENSORY EVALUATIONS FROM DESCRIPTIVE PANELS , 1991 .

[21]  H. Lawless,et al.  Contextual Effects in Category Ratings , 1983 .