A Quantitative Approach to the Comparative Assessment of Taste Quality in the Confectionery Industry

one. The above argument shows not only that the choice of physical standard will of necessity be arbitrary from the strictly logical point of view, but also that, when it comes to the comparison of one sample with another, the direction in which the 'best' quality lies is not very well defined. However, this logical analysis probably makes the tasting process sound much less reliable than it turns out to be in practice. It is indeed essential to keep this fundamental criticism in mind, and to appreciate at all times the subjective basis of taste comparison: but this does not rob it of all validity. The physical standard used in practice is termed 'Control', written with a capital C in order to distinguish it from control in any more general sense. The renewal of Controls, carried out by a special panel (the Control Panel) comprising the more expert tasters of long experience, is done by taking samples from current production, comparing them with the old Control, and taking the best sample as the new This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.195 on Thu, 14 Apr 2016 04:59:03 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms ASSESSMENT OF TASTE QUALITY 147 Control, 'best' meaning nearer to (the tasters' concept of) the ideal product. 'Voting for Control' The comparisons with which we are concerned here are all matters of discrimination rather than subjective preference, but the great majority of them, especially those concerning C.D. M. , are matters of 'blanket' discrimination. In other words, they usually refer not to a single characteristic involving a question such as 'Which is the sweeter? ' or 'Which is the smoother? ', but to several characteristics simultaneaously, involving the question 'Which is nearer to the required standard? ' Moreover, as has already been pointed out, the required standard is not a physical entity but merely a concept-the 'ideal product'-in the taste memory of the tasters. This is the main reason for tasters needing extensive training and experience before their assessments can be regarded as reliable. The 'theory' behind this is that, after prolonged tasting of Controls, the new taster will eventually acquire a clear idea of what the material ought to taste like, and that in the company of more experienced tasters he will also come to recognise and remember the best of these Controls. It will be appreciated that, after all is said and done, the comparison procedure does indeed admit a substantial element of personal preference to enter; but it can at least be regarded as objective preference, and in any event it seems impossible to improve on this procedure. From the formal biometric point of view, it will be observed that the so-called blanket vote is essentially a multivariate problem. Unfortunately the variables themselves (e.g., snmoothness, dryness, creamilness) are not well defined; but even if they were, so that the taster could give a separate vote for each variable, there would remain the question of how to combine or weight the separate votes into a meaningful overall comparison. Presumably what happens in the present system is that the taster makes some sort of subconscious weighting. Further analysis of the mental process would, however, be mere idle speculation and is not worth pursuing at this juncture. With these various definitions and explanations dealt with, it is possible succinctly to describe the nature of the important and most frequent taste comparison which is known as 'Voting for Control'. The object of this comparison is to estimate the extent to which a given Sample differs from Control, and the direction in which it differs with respect to the required standard. Each taster is presented with the same coded pair of items, one being Control and the other Sample. Labelled Control is also available for reference purposes if desired, anid tasters This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.195 on Thu, 14 Apr 2016 04:59:03 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms 148 BIOMETRICS, MARCH 1964 are encouraged to take it; but the comparison is not conducted as a formal duo-trio test. After tasting, each taster records his score in the manner described below.