Due to the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting sensory evaluations requiring direct interactions became challenging. In response, researchers have been motivated to devise non-face-to-face testing methods as alternatives. This study aimed to compare two non-face-to-face home-use tests (HUT) with the traditional face-to-face central location test (CLT). Both HUTs involved online recruitment and sample delivery to participants' homes. One HUT provided a written protocol with no direct interaction (contactless HUT; C-HUT), whereas the other included an online meeting with a researcher for live guidance (online HUT; O-HUT). Four coffee samples were evaluated on the basis of liking and sensory and emotional attributes. The comparison between CLT and O-HUT showed RV coefficients of 0.92, 0.93, and 0.98 (P < 0.05) for liking and sensory and emotional attributes, respectively. In addition, based on the RV coefficient, the CLT results showed a significantly greater similarity to those of O-HUT compared to those of C-HUT. The O-HUT also outperformed the C-HUT in its ability to significantly discriminate between samples. Hence, real-time interactions between researchers and participants, as facilitated by O-HUT, may be more suitable in certain scenarios compared to C-HUT, which relies solely on a written protocol. Overall, these findings suggest that C-HUT and O-HUT are suitable methods for collecting sensory data and overcoming geographic and face-to-face contact limitations, providing greater flexibility, and reducing the time and cost associated with traditional sensory evaluations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: