2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.05.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What is the validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

12
93
0
6

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 108 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
12
93
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…These studies highlight the arrangement of products (sorting task) according to the preferences, obtaining very similar ratings between experts and nonexperts (Lelièvre et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These studies highlight the arrangement of products (sorting task) according to the preferences, obtaining very similar ratings between experts and nonexperts (Lelièvre et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Entre estos estudios destacan las ordenaciones de productos (sorting task) en función de preferencias, obteniendo similares valoraciones entre expertos y no expertos (Lelièvre et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…Alguns estudos mostram que avaliadores treinados e não treinados apresentam mapas sensoriais perceptivos semelhantes, como nas avaliações de cereais matinais (CARTIER et al, 2006) e cervejas (CHOLLET et al, 2011). Outros relatam haver diferenças entre os mapas derivados da classificação por sorting e pela análise descritiva clássica, sendo que, normalmente, o primeiro apresenta uma discriminação ligeiramente menor entre as amostras (LELIÈVRE et al, 2008). Para incentivar uma discriminação mais refinada, Santosa et al (2010) propuseram uma modificação no sorting, ao avaliarem amostras de azeite de oliva extra virgem, promovendo a tarefa de classificação em dois estágios e, assim, a criação de subgrupos dentro dos grupos previamente criados, o que permitiu que os avaliadores utilizassem mais critérios ou visões multidimensionais de sua percepção dos produtos.…”
Section: Sortingunclassified
“…This often results in a sensory lexicon that is limited to a few descriptors that can be accurately scaled, ignoring many other attributes that may be present but for which panel consensus regarding their definition and intensity could not be achieved (Lawless, 1999). An approach that could deal with this issue would be to allow panellists to indicate, instead of quantify, which terms are important to describe the product by providing them with an extensive list of descriptors relevant to the product category (Campo, Ballester, Langlois, Dacremont, & Valentin, 2010;Lelièvre, Chollet, Abdi, & Valentin, 2008), or allowing them to supply their own words to describe the product, as is done in the Napping Ò procedure (Perrin et al, 2008). Product complexity has been implicated to impact on the quality of projective mapping results (Nestrud & Lawless, 2010), although this observation was based on fruit and dairy studies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%