Comparing preferred attribute elicitation to trained panelists' evaluations using a novel food product

Abstract

The present study compares a new rapid sensory method, preferred attribute elicitation (PAE), to a trained panelists' evaluations, using cookies containing green tea extract (GTE) as a model. The cookies contained added amounts of 0, 2, 4, 7, and 9% GTE based on the weight of flour. Ten trained panelists evaluated the cookies. The panelists were trained for 10 one‐hour sessions followed by three replicates of testing. Additionally, 43 panelists in two different sessions (n = 25 and 18), evaluated the five samples following the PAE method. RV coefficients were used to provide a numerical value for the degree of similarity between the descriptive data obtained from the PAE sessions and the descriptive analysis panel. The RV coefficient for the two PAE sessions was .843, indicating a very high similarity between the sessions. However, the RV coefficient comparing the two PAE sessions to the descriptive analysis data were .554 and .179, respectively. These results indicate that the PAE method was not comparable to the trained panelists' evaluations. Future work needs to identify when PAE is the most suitable method to use and to modify the existing methodology to make it a more efficient method. Practical applications Preferred attribute elicitation (PAE) is a rapid sensory analysis method that uses untrained panelists to evaluate attributes of a product and determine what attributes drive consumer liking. This study investigates how the technique (using untrained panelist) compares to a trained panel when testing baked products differing in flavor intensity. There was not a relationship between the PAE sessions and trained panel for the flavors of this particular product. More work must be done to determine why the evaluations of the flavor was not consistent if PAE is to be used in future sensory trials.

An intra‐cultural investigation in Brazil using Coalho cheese and preferred attribute elicitation

“…The RV coefficients considering the MFA maps of the data from the three regions were: 0.512 ( p = .03) comparing Northeast and Southeast, 0.664 ( p = .01) comparing Northeast and South, and 0.569 ( p = .02) comparing Southeast and South, indicating a significant correlation ( p < .05). Therefore, there was a significant agreement between the consumers from the different regions, suggesting that the Coalho cheese samples were characterized in the same manner by the consumers from the three regions (Northeast, Southeast, and South) (McSweeney et al, ).…”

“…Therefore, it can originate a more concise list of attributes for the products than other rapid methodologies, because it elicits the agreement of a group of consumers (Grygorczyk, Lesschaeve, Corredig, & Duizer, ). PAE methodology has already been used for identifying differences between men and women in the evaluation of beer (Muggah & McSweeney, ), extracting key sensory properties of yogurts (Grygorczyk et al, ), and comparing trained and untrained individuals in evaluating green tea cookies (McSweeney, Sisopha, T'ien, Rector, & Duizer, ). As far as the authors known, PAE has not been studied for assessing different cultural perceptions of food products by consumers within a country.…”

Consumer Sensory Comparisons Among Beef, Horse, Elk, and Bison Using Preferred Attributes Elicitation and Check‐All‐That‐Apply Methods

“…The choice to use approximately 10 panelists in each PAE test rather than 10 to 25 used in previous PAE studies was based on the recommendation of McSweeney et al. () to ensure equal contributions to the discussion by each panelist. Unlike the previous PAE studies where hedonic data, attribute generation, intensity rating, and ranking for importance to liking were conducted in one session, the present PAE studies were conducted in two sessions each for each group.…”

“…The first two PAE sessions were conducted simultaneously before the CATA/consumer test (n = 7 panelists for each session), whereas the last PAE session was conducted after the consumer test as a means of validating results of the first two PAE studies using 11 panelists. The choice to use approximately 10 panelists in each PAE test rather than 10 to 25 used in previous PAE studies was based on the recommendation of McSweeney et al (2017) to ensure equal contributions to the discussion by each panelist. Unlike the previous PAE studies where hedonic data, attribute generation, intensity rating, and ranking for importance to liking were conducted in one session, the present PAE studies were conducted in two sessions each for each group.…”

“…Another novel rapid descriptive profiling method is the Preferred Attributes Elicitation (PAE) method in which untrained consumers simultaneously agree on the attributes that describe a set of products and rank the attributes in order of importance to liking (Grygorczyk et al, 2013;McSweeney, Sisopha, T'ien, Rector, & Duizer, 2017;Muggah & McSweeney, 2017). The advantage of this method is that it is conducted with untrained panelists within a single session using fewer panelists compared to CATA.…”