Standard texture rating scales of hardness, adhesiveness, fracturability, cohesiveness, and denseness were modified during the training of a Texture Profile panel. New reference materials were selected for each scale to better illustrate the texture characteristics and intensities and to account for previously recommended food products no longer available. In addition, new reference scales for wetness, adhesiveness to lips, roughness, self‐adhesiveness, springiness, cohesiveness of mass, moisture absorption, adhesiveness to teeth, and manual adhesiveness were developed. The application of new texture reference scales reduced the variability among panelists and provided consistent judgments in texture evaluations. Expanded and improved definitions and evaluation procedures for texture attributes are presented. Also, special considerations for the use of reference scales in texture evaluations are discussed.

No abstract

A descriptive training program involves the development of standardized practices or a common frame of reference. This paper reviews concepts and procedures on developing a qualitative frame of reference (i. e., the development of a common lexicon, language), and discusses the different alternatives for quantitative frames of reference. Different quantitative frames of reference can be established depending on the philosophy chosen to rate attribute intensities. The three philosophies presented in this manuscript are the universal, product spec@ and attribute spec@c scaling approaches. The advantages, disadvantages and uses of each of these techniques are discussed. A well trained panel hus sound common qualitative and quantitative frames of reference used in product evaluations. A low panel variabiliry is obtained when both frames of reference are successfully implemented and used.

No abstract

No abstract