Sensory professionals' perspective on the possibilities of using facial expression analysis in sensory and consumer research.

The increase in digitalization, software applications, and computing power has widened the variety of tools with which to collect and analyze sensory data. As these changes continue to take place, examining new skills required among sensory professionals is needed. The aim with this study was to answer the following questions: (a) How did sensory professionals perceive the opportunities to utilize facial expression analysis in sensory evaluation work? (b) What skills did the sensory professionals describe they needed when utilizing facial expression analysis? Twenty-two sensory professionals from various food companies and universities were interviewed by using semistructural thematic interviews to map development intentions from facial expression recognition data as well as to describe the established skills that were needed. Participants' facial expressions were first elicited by an odor sample during a sensory evaluation task. The evaluation was video recorded to characterize a facial expression software response (FaceReader™). The participants were interviewed regarding their opinions of the data analysis the software produced. The study findings demonstrate how using facial expression analysis contains personal and field-specific perspectives. Recognizability, associativity, reflectivity, reliability, and suitability were perceived as a personal perspective. From the field-specific perspective, professionals considered the received data valuable only if they had skills to interpret and utilize it. There is a need for an increase in training not only in IT, mathematics, statistics, and problem-solving, but also in skills related to self-management and ethical responsibility.

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Authors. Food Science & Nutrition published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the study reported.