ArticleCurrent research in food science2020
Applying sorting algorithms to sensory ranking tests - A proof of concept study.
Article in Current research in food science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a sensory or consumer setting, panelists are commonly asked to rank a set of stimuli, either by the panelist's liking of the samples, or by the samples' perceived intensity of a particular sensory note. Ranking is seen as a "simple" task for panelists, and thus is usually performed with minimal (or no) specific instructions given to panelists. Despite its common usage, seemingly little is known about the specific cognitive task that panelists are performing when ranking samples. It becomes quickly unruly to suggest a series of paired comparisons between samples, with 45 individual paired comparisons needed to rank 10 samples. Comparing a number of elements with regards to a scaled value is common in computer science, with a number of differing sorting algorithms used to sort arrays of numerical elements. We compared the efficacy of the most basic sorting algorithm, Bubble Sort (based on comparing each element to its neighbor, moving the higher to the right, and repeating), vs a more advanced algorithm, Merge Sort (based on dividing the array into sub arrays, sorting these sub arrays, and then combining), in a sensory ranking task of 6 ascending concentrations of sucrose (n = 73 panelists). Results confirm that as seen in computer science, a Merge Sort procedure performs better than Bubble Sort in sensory ranking tasks, although the perceived difficulty of the approach suggests panelists would benefit from a longer period of training. Lastly, through a series of video recorded one-on-one interviews, and an additional sensory ranking test (n = 78), it seems that most panelists natively follow a similar procedure to Bubble Sorting when asked to rank without instructions, with correspondingly inferior results to those that may be obtained if a Merge Sorting procedure was applied. Results suggests that ranking may be improved if panelists were given a simple set of instructions on the Merge Sorting procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.