METHOD, SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR EVALUATING SENSORY ASSESSORS' CONCENTRATION ABILITY

Abstract

The attention recognition embodied by the method for evaluating the concentration ability of a sensory assessor is organically combined with evaluations for three categories of ranking capability, namely, excellent, good, and poor. Therefore, sensory assessors displaying high sensibility and poor attention form part of the group possessing excellent ranking capability, while sensory assessors exhibiting moderate sensibility and high attention can be found in the group possessing good ranking capability. Furthermore, sensory assessors displaying fair sensibility and high attention can be found in the group with poor ranking capability. This system can identify the concentration ability of assessors, therefore, providing support for the reliability of ranking results.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating a concentration ability of sensory assessors, comprising: S1, entering a first kind of data to a data input unit and saving the first kind of data. to a storage unit; S2, processing the first kind of data with a data processing unit to obtain a second kind of data, a third kind of data, a fourth kind of data, and fifth kind of data; S3, analyzing the second kind of data, the third kind of data, the fourth kind of data and the fifth kind of data with a data analysis unit, to determine the concentration ability of each of the the sensory assessors; and S4, displaying a serial number relating to the concentration ability of each of the sensory assessors in a result display unit; wherein the first kind of data are obtained by repeatedly ranking n samples at different concentrations on sensory quality for m rounds of ranking by each of the sensory assessors, wherein n=6 and m=12: wherein the data processing unit comprises a ranking capability classification module, a true ranking capability module, a repeated ranking capability module, and a ranking focusing capability module: wherein the value of a Spearman rank correlation coefficient r.sub.s for each of the m rounds of ranking by each of the sensory assessors is calculated using the ranking capability classification module according to the ranking information: then, a median and a mode of the values of the Spearman rank correlation coefficients r.sub.s are obtained after the m rounds of ranking by each of the sensory assessors are calculated: the true ranking capability module evaluates the correct ranking capability of each of the sensory assessors after eliminating abnormal results for a round with an r.sub.s value of less than 060 among the in rounds of ranking by each of the sensory assessors: the r.sub.s value for each remaining round of ranking is converted into a corresponding equidistant data Z.sub.r value via a Z.sub.r Fisher conversion, and an arithmetic mean value Z.sub.r of the Z.sub.r values is calculated for the remaining rounds obtained after eliminating the round with the abnormal result for each of the sensory assessors, indicating that a higher Z.sub.r value induces a more true ranking capability; the repeated ranking capability module evaluates a repeated ranking capability of each of the sensory assessors: calculating a S.sub.Zr of the Z.sub.r values for the remaining rounds obtained after kicking out the round with the abnormal result for each of the sensory assessors; and the repeated ranking capability of each of the sensory assessors is reflected according to the S.sub.Zr, wherein the smaller the S.sub.Zr is, the higher the repeated ranking capability is: a ratio of the S.sub.Zr of the Z.sub.r values to the Z.sub.r values for each of the sensory assessors after the m rounds of ranking is calculated using the ranking focusing capability module and the ratio calculated is a CV (Coefficient of Variation) value, wherein the CV value is calculated according to the following formula: $\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{CV}=\frac{S_{Z_r}}{\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}};& \left(1\right)\end{array}$ wherein the second kind of data is represented by the median and the mode of the r.sub.s values; the third kind of data is the Z.sub.r value: the fourth kind of data is the S.sub.Zr value, and the fifth kind of data is the CV value: wherein when n=6, the data analysis unit is configured to analyze the second kind of data, wherein a sensory assessor with a mode=1.00 belongs to the first kind of sensory assessor group exhibiting an excellent ranking capability, while a sensory assessor with a median=0.943 belongs to the second kind of sensory assessor group displaying a good ranking capability, and the remaining sensory assessors belong to the third kind of sensory assessor group displaying a poor ranking capability; the data analysis unit is configured to analyze the CV value of each sensory assessor group, wherein, a CV value of >20% denotes the first kind of sensory assessor group possessing a high sensibility and a poor attention, a CV value of ≤17% denotes the second kind of sensory assessor group possessing a moderate sensibility and a high attention, and a CV value of ≤21% signifies the third kind of sensory assessor group possessing a fair sensibility and the high attention.

2. (canceled)

3. (canceled)

4. (canceled)

5. The method for evaluating the concentration ability of the sensory assessors according to claim 1, wherein the Spearman rank correlation coefficient r.sub.s is calculated according to the following formula: $\begin{array}{cc}{r}_s=1-\frac{6{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{d}_i^2}{n\left(n^2-1\right)}\left[\left[\left(1\right)\right]\right],& \left(2\right)\end{array}$ wherein the r.sub.s is Spearman the rank correlation coefficient; n is a number of ranking experiment samples; d.sub.i is a difference between a real rank and a rank of a sensory assessor of an i.sup.th sample in a round of ranking.

6. The method for evaluating the concentration ability of the sensory assessors according to claim 1, wherein the Z.sub.r Fisher conversion is used to convert the r.sub.s value for each ranking round by each of the sensory assessors into the Z.sub.r value according to the following calculation formula: $\begin{array}{cc}{Z}_r={\tanh }^{-1}\left(r_s\right)={.Math.}_{N=0}^{\infty }\frac{r_s^{2N+1}}{2N+1}\left[\left[\left(2\right)\right]\right],& \left(3\right)\end{array}$ wherein r.sub.s is the Spearman rank correlation coefficient; and N is a number of inverse hyperbolic tangent expansion terms; the value of Z.sub.r is calculated according to the following formula: $\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}=\frac{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m\left(n_j-3\right)Z_{\mathrm{rj}}}{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m\left(n_j-3\right)}\left[\left[\left(3\right)\right]\right].& \left(4\right)\end{array}$ wherein m is a number of evaluation repeats after eliminating the abnormal result ; n.sub.j is a number of samples in a j.sup.th repeated evaluation, and n.sub.j:=6; the Z.sub.rj value is the Fisher conversion Z.sub.r value of the Spearman correlation coefficient r.sub.s value for the j.sup.th repeated evaluation where the S.sub.Zr is calculated according to the following formula: $\begin{array}{cc}{S}_{Z_r}=\sqrt{\frac{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m{\left(Z_{r_j}-\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}\right)}^2}{m}}\left[\left[\left(4\right)\right]\right],& \left(5\right)\end{array}$ wherein m is the number of evaluation repeats after eliminating the round with the abnormal result; Z.sub.rj is the Fisher conversion Z.sub.r value of the Spearman correlation coefficient r.sub.s value in the j.sup.th repeated evaluation; Z.sub.r is a mean value of the Z.sub.r values obtained by applying the Fisher conversion to the r.sub.s value of the remaining rounds after eliminating the round with the abnormal result for a sensory assessor.

7. (canceled)

8. The method for evaluating the concentration ability of the sensory assessors according to claim 1, wherein the serial number for each of the sensory assessors turn red in the result display unit when the sensory assessors display the high sensibility and the poor attention, yellow for the moderate sensibility and the high attention, and green in the case for the fair sensibility and the high attention.

9. A system for evaluating the concentration ability of the sensory assessors while using the method according to claim 1, comprising: the data input unit for entering the first kind of data; the storage unit for storing the first kind of data; the data processing unit for processing the first kind of data to obtain the second kind of data, the third kind of data, the fourth kind of data, and the fifth kind of data; the data analysis unit for assessing the second kind of data, the third kind of data, the fourth kind of data, and the fifth kind of data to determine the concentration ability of each of the sensory assessors; and the result display unit for displaying the serial number representative of the concentration ability of each of the sensory assessors.

10. A device comprising the system according to claim 9.

11. The system according to claim 9, wherein the Spearman rank correlation coefficient r.sub.s is calculated according to the following formula: $\begin{array}{cc}{r}_s=1-\frac{6{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{d}_i^2}{n\left(n^2-1\right)}& \left(2\right)\end{array}$ wherein the r.sub.s is Spearman the rank correlation coefficient; n is a number of ranking experiment samples; d.sub.i is a difference between a real rank and a rank of a sensory assessor of an i.sup.th sample in a round of ranking.

12. The system according to claim 9, wherein the Zr Fisher conversion is used to convert the r.sub.s value for each ranking round by each of the sensory assessors into the Z.sub.r value according to the following calculation formula: $\begin{array}{cc}{Z}_r={\tanh }^{-1}\left(r_s\right)={.Math.}_{N=0}^{\infty }\frac{r_s^{2N+1}}{2N+1},& \left(3\right)\end{array}$ wherein r.sub.s is the Spearman rank correlation coefficient; and N is a number of inverse hyperbolic tangent expansion terms; the value of Z.sub.r is calculated according to the following formula: $\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}=\frac{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m\left(n_j-3\right)Z_{\mathrm{rj}}}{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m\left(n_j-3\right)},& \left(4\right)\end{array}$ wherein m is a number of evaluation repeats after eliminating the abnormal result; n.sub.j is a number of samples in a j.sup.th repeated evaluation, and n.sub.j=6; the Z.sub.rj value is the Fisher conversion Z.sub.r value of the Spearman correlation coefficient r.sub.s value for the j.sup.th repeated evaluation where the S.sub.Zr is calculated according to the following formula: $\begin{array}{cc}{S}_{Z_r}=\sqrt{\frac{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m{\left(Z_{r_j}-\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}\right)}^2}{m}},& \left(5\right)\end{array}$ wherein m is the number of evaluation repeats after eliminating the round with the abnormal result; Z.sub.rj is the Fisher conversion Z.sub.r value of the Spearman correlation coefficient r.sub.s value in the j.sup.th repeated evaluation; Z.sub.r, is a mean value of the Z.sub.r values obtained by applying the Fisher conversion to the r.sub.s value of the remaining rounds after eliminating the round with the abnormal result for a sensory assessor.

13. The system according to claim 9, wherein the serial number for each of the sensory assessors turn red in the result display unit when the sensory assessors display the high sensibility and the poor attention, yellow for the moderate sensibility and the high attention, and green for the fair sensibility and the high attention.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0041] FIG. 1 is a structural diagram of a system for evaluating the concentration ability of sensory assessors.

[0042] FIG. 2 is a structural diagram of a data processing unit in one embodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

[0043] The present invention will be further specified by the detailed embodiments below However, it should be noted that the present invention may be implemented in various ways and should not be limited by the embodiments illustrated here. On the contrary, these embodiments are provided to render the present invention more apparent and complete, While fully conveying the invention scope to those skilled in the art.

[0044] The terms “comprise” or “include” mentioned throughout the description and claims are inclusive wording and should, therefore, be interpreted as “include but not limited to.” What is subsequently outlined in the description are preferred embodiments of the present invention, Which are aimed at the general principle of the description, but are not intended to define the present invention scope. The protection scope of the present invention shall be subject to the protection scope defined by the claims.

[0045] Unless expressly specified otherwise, the various methods employed in the present invention are conventional, while the different materials and reagents are commercially available.

Embodiment 1

[0046] The method for evaluating the concentration ability of sensory assessors comprises the following steps:

[0047] S1, entering first kind of data to a data input unit and storing it in a storage unit;

[0048] S2, processing the first kind of data using a data processing unit to obtain the second kind of data, the third kind of data, the fourth kind of data, and the fifth kind of data;

[0049] S3, analyzing the second kind of data, the third kind of data, the fourth kind of data and the fifth kind of data using a data analysis unit, thereby determining the concentration ability of a sensory assessor;

[0050] S4, displaying serial numbers for the sensory assessors with specific attention characteristics in a result display unit.

[0051] The first kind of data refers to the ranking information obtained by an assessor by repeatedly ranking the sensory quality of n samples at different concentrations for the in rounds where n=6 and m=12.

[0052] The acquisition method of first kind of data is as follows:

[0053] 1. The Screening of Assessors

[0054] For this process, 33 sensory assessors with a normal and relatively sensitive basic sense of taste (sour, sweet, hitter, and salty) were screened in accordance with the GB/T 12312-2012 Sensory Analysis Method of investigating Sensibility of Taste. Then, the screening continued by training the assessors based on the evaluation method and technical points of the skilled taste ranking experiment in accordance with the experimental requirements of the GB/T 12315-2008 Sensory Analysis Methodology: Ranking.

[0055] 2. The Preparation of the Ranking Samples

[0056] Sucrose solution was selected as the ranking object of sweetness samples to evaluate the performance of ranking capability. Considering the negative emotion caused by sensory fatigue and multiple ranking repetitions, the overall concentration of the sweetness samples should be moderate (not too sweet, but sweet enough), The concentration difference among the samples of the ranking experiment series were set by referring to a threshold of the average sweetness difference in the panel of 33 sensory assessors. The extremely low concentration difference makes it challenging for assessors to distinguish the strength order of the sweetness, resulting, in disordered and incorrect ranking results from the majority of the sensory assessors, and losing the evaluation significance of ranking capability performance and, therefore, concentration differences that are too low should be avoided. On the contrary, the concentration difference should not be too high either, since this will allow the sensory assessors to correctly rank the strength order of sweetness too quickly, which also fails to be of any significant value during the ranking capability evaluation. The following basic principles are used for the preparation of the series of sample concentrations: ensure that a ¼ of the sensory assessors achieve an accurate ranking, while a ¼of the sensory assessors find it challenging, and the remaining ½ of the sensory assessors fail to obtain the correct order of an individual sample. Additionally, considering the dual factors of index increase in ranking difficulty caused by the increase of samples and the shortage of statistical significance caused by insufficient number of samples, the sweet solution at 6 concentrations were selected deliberately Specific concentrations are shown in Table 1.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Sample rank and the corresponding concentrations Sensory Correct rank and corresponding concentration (g .Math. L.sup.−1) characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sweetness 15.2 18.0 21.3 25.1 29.6 34.9

[0057] 3. Sensory Ranking Experiment

[0058] Sensory assessors were given a sweet solution at six different concentrations during each round of the experiment and requested to rank the sweetness strength of the solution from the weakest to the strongest based on sensory evaluation, with the weakest denoted by ranking No. 1 (rank), and the strongest signified by ranking No. 6, The samples where the strength was challenging to be distinguished, required different rank, avoiding allocation of the same rank to more than one sample, namely, a mode of forced-choice operation. Each sensory assessor requires 12 rounds of repeated ranking experiments in total, and all experimental samples are coded with three different random figures, while a randomized complete block design facilitates the providing order of the samples in each experiment.

[0059] Therefore, n=6 and m=12 generally denote the actual operational process, and the data has practical guidance significance.

[0060] The data processing unit includes a ranking capability classification module, a true ranking capability module, a repeated ranking capability module, and a ranking focusing capability module. Specifically, processing steps of the data processing unit are as follows:

[0061] First, a Spearman rank correlation coefficient r value is calculated for each round of ranking by each sensory assessor using the ranking capability classification module according to the ranking information. Then, a median and a mode for the values of the Spearman rank correlation coefficients r are obtained after the in rounds of the ranking experiments by each sensory assessor are calculated.

[0062] The Spearman rank correlation coefficient is calculated according to the following formula:

[00006]$\begin{array}{cc}{r}_s=1-\frac{6{.Math.}_{i=1}^n{d}_l^2}{n\left(n^2-1\right)}& \left(1\right)\end{array}$

[0063] where r.sub.s is a rank correlation coefficient n is the number of ranking experiment samples, and d.sub.i is the difference between the real rank and the rank of the sensory assessor of the i.sup.th sample during the ranking experiment.

[0064] For example, it is preferable that when n=6, the sensory assessors with a mode=1.00 belong to the first kind of sensory assessor group possessing excellent ranking capability; the sensory assessors with a median=0.943 belong to the second kind of group possessing good ranking capability, and the remaining sensory assessors belong to the third kind of group possessing poor ranking capability.

[0065] Then, the correct ranking capability of a sensory assessor is assessed using the true ranking capability module by eliminating rounds with an r.sub.s value of less than 0.60 among the m rounds of ranking by each sensory assessor. Then, the rank data r.sub.s value for each remaining round of ranking is converted into a corresponding equidistant data Z.sub.r value using Z.sub.r Fisher conversion, and arithmetic mean value Z.sub.r from the Z.sub.r values of the remaining rounds is obtained after eliminating the abnormal experiments for each sensory assessor, where a higher Z.sub.r value signifies a more correct ranking capability. The Z.sub.r Fisher conversion is used to convert the r.sub.s value for each ranking experiment by each sensory assessor into a Z.sub.r value according to the following calculation formula:

[00007]$\begin{array}{cc}{Z}_r={\tanh }^{-1}\left(r_s\right)={.Math.}_{N=0}^{\infty }\frac{r_s^{2N+1}}{2N+1}& \left(2\right)\end{array}$

[0066] where r.sub.s is the rank correlation coefficient, and N is the number of inverse hyperbolic tangent expansion terms.

[0067] The value of Z.sub.r is calculated according to the following formula:

[00008]$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}=\frac{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m\left(n_j-3\right)Z_{\mathrm{rj}}}{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m\left(n_j-3\right)}& \left(3\right)\end{array}$

[0068] where m is the number of evaluation repeats after eliminating any abnormal experiments; n.sub.j is the number of samples in the j.sup.th repeated evaluation, and n.sub.j=6; Zr.sub.j value is the Fisher conversion Zr value of the correlation coefficient r.sub.s in the j.sup.th repeated evaluation.

[0069] Then, the repeated ranking capability of a sensory assessor is assessed using the repeated ranking capability module by calculating an S.sub.Zr of the Z.sub.r values for the remaining rounds obtained after eliminating abnormal experiments for each sensory assessor. The repeated ranking capability of each sensory assessor is reflected according to the S.sub.Zr. Therefore, the smaller the S.sub.Zr, the higher the repeated ranking capability.

[0070] S.sub.Zr is calculated according to the following formula:

[00009]$\begin{array}{cc}{S}_{Z_r}=\sqrt{\frac{{.Math.}_{j=1}^m{\left(Z_{r_j}-\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}\right)}^2}{m}}& \left(4\right)\end{array}$

[0071] where m is the number of evaluation repeats after eliminating abnormal experiments; Zr.sub.j is the Fisher conversion Z.sub.r of the correlation coefficient r.sub.s in the j.sup.th repeated evaluation; Z.sub.r is a mean value of the Z.sub.r values obtained by applying the Fisher conversion to the r.sub.s values of the remaining rounds after eliminating the abnormal experiments for a particular assessor.

[0072] Then, a ratio (CV value) of the S.sub.Zr of the Z.sub.r values is calculated after multiple rounds of ranking to obtain Z.sub.r for each sensory assessor using the ranking focusing capability module. The CV value is calculated according to the following formula:

[00010]$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{CV}=\frac{S_{Z_r}}{\stackrel{\_}{Z_r}}.& \left(5\right)\end{array}$

[0073] The second kind of data refers to the median and mode of the r.sub.s value; the third kind of data. is the Z.sub.r value: the fourth kind of data is the S.sub.Zr value, and the fifth kind of data is the CV value.

[0074] Finally, the data analysis unit is configured to analyze the CV value of each sensory assessor group; a CV value of >20% denotes the first sensory assessor group (with excellent ranking capability) possessing high sensibility and poor attention; a CV value of ≤17% denotes the second sensory assessor group (with good ranking capability) possessing moderate sensibility and high attention, and a CV value of ≤21% signifies the third sensory assessor group (with poor ranking capability) possessing fair sensibility and high attention.

[0075] The serial numbers for a sensory assessor turn red in the result display module when they display high sensibility and poor attention, yellow in the case of moderate sensibility and high attention, green in the case of fair sensibility and high attention.

Embodiment 2

[0076] FIG. 1 shows the system for assessing the concentration ability of sensory assessors and comprises of the following steps: a data input unit for entering the first kind of data; a storage unit for storing the first kind of data; a data processing unit for processing the first kind of data to obtain the second kind of data, the third kind of data, the fourth kind of data, and the fifth kind of data; a data analysis unit for analyzing the second kind of data, the third kind of data, the fourth kind of data and the fifth kind of data, thereby providing the concentration ability of a sensory assessor; and a result display unit for displaying the serial numbers denoting the concentration ability of the sensory assessors.

[0077] The data processing unit includes a ranking capability classification module, a true ranking capability module, a repeated ranking capability module, and a ranking focusing capability module (as shown in FIG. 2).

[0078] The ranking capability classification module is configured to calculate a Spearman rank correlation coefficient r.sub.s of each ranking result for each sensory assessor according to the ranking information. Then, statistical analysis is performed to calculate a median and mode of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient r.sub.s obtained after m rounds of ranking experiments for each sensory assessor are calculated.

[0079] The correct ranking capability module is configured to evaluate the correct ranking capability of a sensory assessor by eliminating a result for a round with an r value of less than 0.60 among the in rounds of ranking by each sensory assessor. The rank data r.sub.s value for each remaining round of ranking is converted into a corresponding equidistant data Z.sub.r value via Z.sub.r Fisher conversion, and then an arithmetic mean value Z.sub.r of the Z.sub.r values for the remaining rounds are obtained after eliminating the abnormal experiments for each sensory assessor. Therefore, the greater the Z.sub.r, the higher the correct ranking capability.

[0080] The repeated ranking capability module is configured to evaluate the repeated ranking capability of a sensory assessor by calculating an S.sub.Zr of the Z.sub.r values for the remaining rounds, obtained after eliminating the abnormal experiments for each sensory assessor. Then, the repeated ranking capability of each sensory assessor is reflected according to the S.sub.Zr, showing that a smaller the S.sub.Zr induces a higher repeated ranking capability.

[0081] The ranking focusing capability module is configured to calculate the ratio (CV value) of the S.sub.Zr of the Z.sub.r values to the Z.sub.r value for each sensory assessor after multiple rounds of ranking.

[0082] The data analysis unit is configured to analyze the CV value of each sensory assessor group. A CV value of >20% denotes the first kind of sensory assessor group (with excellent ranking capability) possessing high sensibility and poor attention; a CV value of ≤17% denotes the second kind of sensory assessor group (with good ranking capability) possessing moderate sensibility and high attention, and a CV value of ≤21% signified the third kind of sensory assessor group (with poor ranking capability) possessing fair sensibility and high attention.

[0083] The serial numbers for sensory assessors turn red in the result display module when they display high sensibility and poor attention, yellow in the case of moderate sensibility and high attention, green in the case of fair sensibility and high attention.

[0084] Although the present invention has been presented explicitly via the general description and detailed embodiments mentioned above, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that some modifications or improvements can he made based on the present invention. However, making these modifications or improvements should not depart from the spirit of the present invention and must remain within its protection scope.