ArticleFood quality and preference2023
Consumer testing away from a sensory facility: Application of home-use test and no-contact home-use test.
Article in Food quality and preference, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensory profiling of South Korean grape wines: a comparison of fast profiling methods and evaluation environments.Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026Article
- Comparison of volatile aroma compounds and consumer perception between domestic and imported milk in Korea.Food science of animal resources · 2026Article
- Waste robusta coffee husk pectin: ultrasound-assisted extraction and applications in roselle flower marmalade and fruit coating.RSC advances · 2025Article
- How to measure consumer's inconsistency in sensory testing?Current research in food science · 2025Article
- Addition of Carrot Pomace to Enhance the Physical, Sensory, and Functional Properties of Beef Patties.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions for approximately three years have heavily influenced sensory evaluations. People have become accustomed to working remotely and communicating online. This has led to opportunities in sensory testing paired with logistics systems and information technologies, resulting in a wide application of the home-use test (HUT), wherein panelists evaluate samples from their homes or other off-site locations. This study aimed to compare three sensory evaluation conditions: a central location test (CLT, n = 104), a HUT (n = 120), and a no-contact HUT (N-HUT, n = 111). We recruited participants via the local community website, delivered samples using a delivery service, and conducted sensory testing using a smartphone for the N-HUT. Participants were requested to report the acceptance ratings, sensory profiles, and emotion responses to four coffee samples. Some differences in the acceptance ratings might be due to the different attitudes participating in the evaluation. In the sensory profiling of the samples, multi-factor analysis (MFA) revealed highly similar sensory characteristics across the three types of tests. All RV coefficients (RVs) among the test conditions were above 0.93. The emotion responses to coffee samples were similar among test conditions based on the MFA with RV values greater than 0.84. In conclusion, we found that N-HUT produced similar results regarding the descriptions of sensory profiles and emotions, indicating that N-HUT is a suitable test method for collecting sensory data and overcoming CLT and HUT's regional limitations. Modern logistics systems and information technologies make it possible to conduct nationwide sensory evaluations without in-person contact or participant attendance at sensory testing facilities.
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.