Schweitzer Fachinformationen
Wenn es um professionelles Wissen geht, ist Schweitzer Fachinformationen wegweisend. Kunden aus Recht und Beratung sowie Unternehmen, öffentliche Verwaltungen und Bibliotheken erhalten komplette Lösungen zum Beschaffen, Verwalten und Nutzen von digitalen und gedruckten Medien.
Discrimination Testing in Sensory Evaluation
Provides a complete and unified approach to discrimination testing in sensory evaluation
Sensory evaluation has evolved from simple "taste testing" to a distinct scientific discipline. Today, the application of sensory evaluation has grown beyond the food industry-it is a sophisticated decision-making tool used by marketing, research and development, and assurance in industries such as personal care, household care, cosmetics, fragrances, automobile manufacturing, and many others. Sensory evaluation is now a critical component in determining and understanding consumer acceptance and behavior.
Discrimination Testing in Sensory Evaluation provides insights into the application of sensory evaluation throughout the entire product life cycle, from development to marketing. Filled with practical information and step-by-step guidance, this unique reference is designed to help users apply paired comparison tests, duo-trio tests, triangle tests, similarity tests, and various other discrimination tests in a broad range of product applications. Comprehensive chapters written by leading experts provide up-to-date coverage of traditional and cutting-edge techniques and applications in the field.
Discrimination Testing in Sensory Evaluation is an indispensable reference and guide for sensory scientists, in academia and industry, as well as professionals working in R&D, quality assurance and control, and marketing. It is also an excellent textbook for university courses and industry vocational programs in Sensory Science.
Lauren Rogers is an independent sensory science consultant in the UK with more than twenty years of practical experience. She is a member of the Society of Sensory Professionals, the Institute of Food Science and Technology's Sensory Science Group, the Sensometric Society and is also a member of the ASTM Sensory Evaluation Committee (E18).
Joanne Hort is Fonterra Riddet Chair in Consumer and Sensory Science, and Director of the Food Experience and Sensory Testing (Feast) Lab, at Massey University in New Zealand. She was previously SABMiller Chair of Sensory Science at the University of Nottingham in the UK. She was a founding member of the Institute of Food Science and Technology's Sensory Science Group and the European Sensory Science Society.
Sarah E. Kemp is a chartered sensory and consumer scientist with more than 35 years of experience in academia and industry. She has held senior positions at companies including Givaudan-Roure, Unilever Research and Cadbury Schweppes, as well as running her own consultancy business. She is a founding member and past Chair of the Institute of Food Science and Technology's Sensory Science Group and Chair of BSI Committee AW/012 Sensory Analysis.
Tracey Hollowood as former Director of Sensory and Consumer Research for Sensory Dimensions Ltd, she has over 25 years of academic and industrial experience and has been published extensively. She established the UK's first Post Graduate Certificate in Sensory Science and managed Nottingham University's Sensory Science Centre. She was a previous Chair of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST) Midland Branch and the Sensory Science Group (SSG).
List of Contributors xv
Preface to the Series xvii
Preface xxi
Editor Biographies xxiii
Section 1 Introduction 1
1 Introduction 3Sarah E. Kemp, Tracey Hollowood, Joanne Hort and Lauren Rogers
1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 Developments of Discrimination Testing 4
1.3 Discrimination as a Technique in Sensory Science 11
1.4 Applications 15
1.5 Overview of Book 16
References 19
2 General Considerations in Discrimination Testing 25Harry T. Lawless
2.1 Introduction: Goals of Discrimination Tests 25
2.2 Types of Tests 27
2.3 General Test Considerations 32
2.4 Basic Statistical Analysis 35
2.5 Test Power and Sample Size; Equivalence and Similarity 38
2.6 Psychological Factors 42
2.7 Summary and Conclusions 43
References 44
3 An Overview of Sensory Discrimination Tests 49Stella Lignou and Victoria Norton
References 65
4 Determining Individual Variation in Ability to Discriminate: Factors Affecting Responsiveness and Performance 67Sara Spinelli, Caterina Dinnella and Erminio Monteleone
4.1 Introduction 67
4.2 Overview of the Factors Affecting Individual Differences in Oral and Olfactory Responsiveness 67
4.3 Factors Affecting Consumer and Trained Panelists Ability to Discriminate 74
4.4 Future Developments 76
4.5 Summary 77
Acknowledgments 77
References 77
5 Similarity or Equivalence Testing 85Linda Lopez
5.1 Introduction 85
5.2 Practical and Common-sense Approach for Similarity Testing 87
5.3 Evolution of Similarity Testing Methodology 92
5.4 Example of Similarity Test Application in Claim and Recipe Change 98
5.5 Conclusion 102
References 102
6 Thurstonian Modeling and Signal Detection Theory 105Michael J. Hautus 105
6.1 Signal Detection Theory and Thurstonian Modeling 105
6.2 SDT and Two Stimulus Alternatives 106
6.3 The A-Not A Task 108
6.4 The 2AFC (Paired Comparison) Task 120
6.5 Test Sensitivity 124
6.6 Closing Comments 127
References 127
7 Sureness Judgements and R-Index Calculations and Their Applications 131Danielle van Hout and Hye-Seong Lee
7.1 Quantifications of Sensory Differences 131
7.2 R-Index 132
7.3 Sureness Judgements 133
7.4 Designing an R-Index Study, Using an A-Not A Task 133
7.5 R-Index Data Analysis 136
7.6 Applications 140
7.7 Future Developments 142
Appendix 144
References 148
8 Replicated Discrimination Testing 151Michael Meyners and Bernard Thomas Carr
8.1 Introduction 151
8.2 General Considerations and Study Design 152
8.3 Notation 154
8.4 Statistical Testing to Show Product Differences 157
8.5 Descriptive Analysis and Parameter Estimation 165
8.6 Tests for Equivalence/Similarity 170
8.7 Replicated Preference Tests 171
8.8 Examples 174
8.9 Conclusions 185
8.10 Recommendations 186
8.11 Glossary and Notation 188
Acknowledgements 191
References 191
Section 2 Applications 197
9 Sensory Quality Measurement Based on SDT Discrimination 199Hye-Seong Lee, Min-A Kim and Danielle van Hout
9.1 Introduction 199
9.2 A New Classification of Sensory Discrimination Tests and Their Relative Performance 200
9.3 Reference-based Discrimination Test Methodology: SDT Sensory Quality Measurements 209
9.4 Further Development 226
References 228
10 Discrimination Testing in Flavors and Fragrances: A Practical View 233Karine Miot, Carlos Gómez-Corona and Isabelle Cayeux
10.1 Introduction to Discrimination Testing for Flavors and Fragrances 233
10.2 Discrimination Testing for Flavors 238
10.3 Discrimination Testing for Fragrances 248
10.4 Bringing Social Responsibility into Discrimination Testing for Flavors and Fragrances 256
10.5 What the Future Might Be in the Flavor and Fragrance Industries 259
10.6 Conclusions and Final Considerations 261
References 262
11 Kids as Sensory Detectives: Application of Discrimination Testing with Children to Identify If Differences Exist Between Two or More Products 265Cindy Beeren
11.1 Introduction: Sensory Testing by Kids 265
11.2 Kids' vs. Adults' Sensitivities 266
11.3 Kids vs. Adults' Preferences 268
11.4 Food Neophobia 269
11.5 So Why Use Kids? 270
11.6 Ethical Considerations 272
11.7 Environment for Testing with Kids 274
11.8 Sensory Screening 276
11.9 Training Session 279
11.10 Test Methods 281
11.11 Final Thoughts 285
References 287
12 Expanding Attribute-Specific Difference Tests with Multisample Paired Comparison Paradigms 291Curtis R. Luckett
12.1 Introduction 291
12.2 Practical Considerations 299
12.3 Mosteller's Extension of Thurstone 300
12.4 Bradley-Terry Models 301
12.5 Elo and mElo 302
12.6 Friedman-Style Rank Analysis 302
12.7 Considerations on Choosing an Appropriate Method 303
12.8 Future Developments 313
References 314
13 Summary 317Sarah E. Kemp, Tracey Hollowood, Joanne Hort and Lauren Rogers
13.1 Introduction 317
13.2 Overall Comparison of Methods 317
13.3 Current/Recent Developments 320
13.4 Future 324
13.5 Conclusions 327
References 327
Index 331
Sarah E. Kemp1, Tracey Hollowood2, Joanne Hort3 and Lauren Rogers4
1 Consultant and formerly Head of Global Sensory and Consumer Guidance, Cadbury Schweppes, UK
2 Formerly Managing Director of Sensory Dimensions Ltd, UK
3 Food Experience and Sensory Testing Laboratory (Feast), Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
4 Freelance Sensory Scientist, UK
Sensory discrimination tests are methodologies used in fields such as foods and beverages, home and personal care, cosmetics, and consumer goods to assess whether two samples are perceptibly different. The two samples being tested generally come from two production batches. These different batches might use, for example, different ingredients, different manufacturing processes, or different packaging. Discrimination tests are also used to evaluate and quantify individuals' abilities to perceive and differentiate various sensory attributes or a holistic difference between products. Participants are typically presented with pairs of products and are tasked with identifying differences or similarities in sensory characteristics, such as appearance, aroma, taste, flavor or texture. These tests play a crucial role in quality control, product development, and market research, for example, providing valuable insights into consumer preferences and aiding in the improvement of product formulations based on perceived sensory attributes.
Imagine that you are the new product development manager for a major snack manufacturer and have been tasked with an innovative global wellness project to further reduce the levels of salt and fat in the company's flagship product. Several designs of experiment studies are currently being discussed by the team and the next step is to discuss the project timings for the assessment of the sensory aspects of the products arising from these experiments. You have a meeting with the sensory manager to discuss the plans and the sensory methods available to help meet the project's action standards. There are several classes of sensory methods available to you, including descriptive, temporal and consumer methods, however, you agree with the global sensory manager that discrimination tests1 are the best choice for this stage of the project as the differences between products should be slight: there is no point in conducting a discrimination test on products that are obviously different. The sensory manager has explained that if you need to know how products are different, you will need a different method (for example, quantitative descriptive analysis or free choice profiling). The sensory discrimination tests will allow you to determine if consumers will notice the difference between the chemically and physically different products from the experimental design studies and the current gold standard products.
To use a sensory discrimination test, three things are usually required: people to assess the samples, the choice of the test and some samples to assess. Obviously, a sensory scientist is also required to choose and administer the test, as well as to analyze and report the results. The person who takes part in the test is often someone who has been screened for their sensory acuity (ISO 2023) and trained in the test method, although they might also be naïve consumers. By training in the method first, the participant is focused on the items in the test and not the execution of the test itself. This person assesses the items presented to them using the training they received, answering the question posed by the test; for example, selecting the odd sample in a discrimination test known as a triangle test (Sinkinson 2017) or rating the difference between samples on a scale (Whelan 2017). The results from all participants in the test are then analyzed to make a final decision based on the objectives and action standard(s).
There are many different sensory discrimination tests available to the sensory scientist to help meet the types of objectives they might encounter. The choice of test will depend on several factors, with the primary considerations being the type of product being tested and the objectives of the test. There is a tendency for businesses to habitually use one discrimination test for all objectives, but not all objectives are equal: for an interesting discussion about the choice of sensory test related to the objective(s) of the research, see Lawless and Heymann (2010, pp. 8-10).
When the focus of the discrimination test is to answer a product-related question, the intended use of the results and the test's position within the project stages are important factors in the choice of test (Meilgaard et al. 2016).
Sensory discrimination testing began early in the 20th century and was originally referred to as difference testing (Meiselman et al. 2022), however, the initial "discrimination tests" were conducted by Weber and Fechner in the early 19th century to examine the relationship between physical stimuli and sensory experience (David 1963). This field of study, now referred to as psychophysics, was characterized by the researchers' belief that sensations could not be measured directly. Consequently, they employed a variety of indirect methods and experiments to gauge perception. Weber's experiments in 1834 explored the "just noticeable difference" between different weights using blindfolded subjects (Holden et al. 2011). He found that the detectable difference was proportional to the initial weight. This method has since become known as "the method of constant stimuli" and bears resemblance to paired comparison methods such as the 2-alternative forced choice test commonly used in sensory science today.
Fechner expanded on Weber's findings, formulating Weber's law and introducing two additional methods: "the method of limits" and "the method of adjustment or average error." Although the latter method is challenging to implement in food research, as it requires subjects to adjust levels of ingredients such as salt, the method of limits - which involves changing the stimulus incrementally and asking subjects if they perceive any sensation - is akin to same-different tests and the ascending forced-choice method of limits employed to determine thresholds today. Thus, the technique of comparing pairs of stimuli began with Weber and was further refined by Fechner (Fechner 1860; Lawless and Heymann 2010).
Louis Thurstone (1927) also made extensive use of paired comparison tests in his psychophysical work to describe the discrimination process, which has been of great interest in the field of sensory discrimination testing. Researchers employ Thurstonian modelling and signal detection theory (SDT) to study differences in people's sensitivity to specific stimuli.
Perhaps the earliest example of a sensory discrimination test in the literature with a focus on food is Fisher's famous article on tea tasting, which would become the cornerstone reference for hypothesis testing. The test originated in the 1920s in Cambridge, when a group of friends, including Ronald Fisher, were debating the proper way to pour tea and whether the milk should be added to the cup before or after the tea. One member of the group claimed that she could discern whether the milk had been added first or last. To test this claim, Fisher designed an experiment to determine whether she could accurately identify the order in which the milk was added (Fisher 1935). The original documentation provides an interesting account of the experiment's design, statistical analysis, and results. Although the method employed in the tea testing was not given a name, Gridgeman (1959) referred to it as a "double-tetrad sorting design." Today, we would likely classify it as an octad or under the M?+?N tests (Lockhart 1951).
Of course, food discrimination testing has been in use for much longer than the past nine decades. Sensory tests, though informally, have been employed to assess food edibility and check drinking water quality for centuries. Additionally, nonfood testing has also been conducted throughout history, such as evaluating the suitability of housing, e.g. caves and weapons, e.g. assessing the sharpness of flint tools (Meilgaard et al. 2016).
Ranking is possibly the earliest sensory discrimination method, with references to its use for assessing preferences for eggs and sweetcorn in very early studies (as reported by Morse 1942). This type of grading, although not a formal sensory test, was one of the first methods used to assess the quality of a product. Experts would assess the quality based on a grading system, and these grading experts were possibly the first example of panel training and maintenance in the literature. However, there was no mention of screening for sensory acuity, and experts checked their assessments against those of their colleagues or standard samples. Some of these grading methods are still used for tea, wine, and coffee (Kilcast 2010).
The first named discrimination testing method was published in 1936 by Sylvia Cover, who wanted to determine if the cooking temperature of roasts made the meat more or less tender (Cover 1936). The new method was referred to as "the...
Dateiformat: ePUBKopierschutz: Adobe-DRM (Digital Rights Management)
Systemvoraussetzungen:
Das Dateiformat ePUB ist sehr gut für Romane und Sachbücher geeignet – also für „fließenden” Text ohne komplexes Layout. Bei E-Readern oder Smartphones passt sich der Zeilen- und Seitenumbruch automatisch den kleinen Displays an. Mit Adobe-DRM wird hier ein „harter” Kopierschutz verwendet. Wenn die notwendigen Voraussetzungen nicht vorliegen, können Sie das E-Book leider nicht öffnen. Daher müssen Sie bereits vor dem Download Ihre Lese-Hardware vorbereiten.Bitte beachten Sie: Wir empfehlen Ihnen unbedingt nach Installation der Lese-Software diese mit Ihrer persönlichen Adobe-ID zu autorisieren!
Weitere Informationen finden Sie in unserer E-Book Hilfe.