Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32914110›Full record

ArticleCurrent research in food science2020

Applying sorting algorithms to sensory ranking tests - A proof of concept study.

Markus Ekman, Asa Amanda Olsson, Kent Andersson, Amanda Jonsson, Alina Stelick, Robin Dando

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Markus EkmanFood Science Summer Scholars Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Asa Amanda OlssonFood Science Summer Scholars Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Kent AnderssonFood Science Summer Scholars Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Amanda JonssonFood Science Summer Scholars Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Alina StelickDepartment of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Robin DandoDepartment of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ConsumerRankingSensorySortingSweetness

Identifiers

PMID32914110
PMCPMC7473370
OpenAlexW2995167164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.