Sensory Evaluation by Quantitative Descriptive Analysis

By H. Stone, J. Sidel, S. Oliver, Anne Woolsey, R. Singleton. 2008

746 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Invited review Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science (2012, neutral): “These include the Flavour Profile (Cairncross & Sjostrom, 1950), the Texture Profile (Brandt et al., 1963), Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA TM ; Stone et al., 1974), Spectrum TM methods (Munoz & Civille, 1992) and Quantitative Flavour Profiling (Stampanoni, 1993).”
Comparison of Rate-All-That-Apply and Descriptive Analysis for the Sensory Profiling of Wine (2018, methodology): “Developed in the 1970s, Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) (Stone et al. 1974) and its subsequent variations (hereafter referred to as DA), has remained the most sophisticated sensory method to quantitatively profile products (Lawless and Heymann 2010).”
Predicting sensory texture properties of cosmetic emulsions by physical measurements (2013, methodology): “[5], is based on the ability of panelists to verbalize their perceptions in a reliable manner, by performing an intensive training; on the other hand, the SpectrumTM Descriptive Analysis (SDA) method [6,26], provides an accurate sensory description of products by rating each attribute on absolute or”
A comparison of the carcass traits and meat quality of conventionally and organically produced rabbits (2008, methodology): “Aquantitative descriptive analysis (Stone et al., 1974; Meilgaard et al., 1999) was performed by four trained tasters of rabbit meat over 20 sessions during a one month period.”