Use of different panellists (experienced, trained, consumers and experts) and the projective mapping task to evaluate white wine. (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Barton, Alanah; Hayward, Lydia; Richardson, Connor D.; McSweeney, Matthew B.
• Is Part Of: Food quality and preference. Volume 83(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: Experienced panellists -- Wine -- Projective mapping -- Ultra-flash profiling -- Consumers -- Trained panellists; Food preferences -- Periodicals; Food -- Quality -- Periodicals; Food industry and trade -- Quality control -- Periodicals; Préférences alimentaires -- Périodiques; Aliments -- Qualité -- Périodiques; Aliments -- Industrie et commerce -- Qualité -- Contrôle -- Périodiques; Food industry and trade -- Quality control; Food preferences; Food -- Quality; Periodicals; 664
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103900
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0950-3293

Abstract

Highlights: Different panellists (experienced, trained, consumers and experts) evaluated wine. The experienced panellists gave similar results to that of the trained panellists. The experts' results were significantly different from the other panellists. Experienced panellists can be used when the amount of time or samples is restricted. Abstract: A panellist's experience with a specific sensory method can influence product differentiation during a sensory task. Projective mapping (PM) and ultra-flash profiling (UFP) have been used extensively to create a description of food products. The objective of this study was to identify how familiarization with a specific sensory method can influence the results. As such this study compares the results of a PM and UFP task completed by experienced panellists (n = 17) to the results from trained panellists (n = 11), naïve consumers (n = 82) and individuals who are employed in the wine industry (experts; n = 12). All panellists evaluated eight single varietal white wines produced in Nova Scotia, Canada. The experienced panellists in this study had experience with the PM task; however, they did not have experience or knowledge about the products being tested (wine). There was no significant correlation between naïve consumers and the experienced panellists (RV = 0.431). However, there was a high similarity between the results of the experienced panellists and the trained panellists (RV = 0.768). The experts' results were significantly different from the other participants (trained, experienced and consumers). The results of this study indicate that knowledge of the sensory method effects the panellists' evaluations and that experienced panellists may be a viable option to evaluate food products when time, resources or samples are limited. More studies need to be done to explore the use of experienced panellists to evaluate different food products.