Food Science and Biotechnology

Korean Society of Food Science and Technology (한국식품과학회)
권호 표지

A Predictive Model for Sensory Difference Tests Accounting for Sequence Effects

  • Lee, Hye-Seong (Department of Food Science and Technology, Ewha Womans University)
  • Published : 2008.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Sequential Sensitivity Analysis (SSA) and conditional stimulus model have been developed to describe sequence effects in difference tests and proposed to generate prediction of differences in sensitivity between various test protocols and to assist the appropriate selection of difference test. Yet, such models did not furnish a complete explanation of the relative sensitivity in 4 different versions of 3-alternative forced choice (AFC) tests where various interstimulus rinses were introduced. In the present study, the vector of the contrasts between various conditional stimuli were measured using same-different and 2-AFC and a new 16-distribution conditional stimulus model was developed by refining Lee and O'Mahony's contrast model. This new model gave superior predictions than previous models.

Keywords

References

  1. Ennis DM. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol.-Chicago 44: 114-118 (1990)
  2. Ennis DM. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sens. Stud. 8: 353-370 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1993.tb00225.x
  3. Green DM, Swets JA. Signal Detecting Theory and Psychophysics. 3rd ed. Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, CA, USA. pp. 7-148 (1988)
  4. Lee HS, O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13: 841-847 (2004)
  5. Lee HS, O'Mahony M. Difference test sensitivity: Cognitive contrast effects. J. Sens. Stud. 22: 17-33 (2007)
  6. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. pp. 1-138 (2005)
  7. O'Mahony M. Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly treatment of response bias, rating, and ranking R-index tests and their relationship to signal detection. J. Sens. Stud. 7: 1-47 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1992.tb00519.x
  8. O'Mahony M. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. Prefer. 6: 227-238 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(95)00022-4
  9. O'Mahony M, Rousseau B. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14: 157-164 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00109-X
  10. Dessirier JM, O'Mahony M. Comparison of d' values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis, and power. Food Qual. Prefer. 10: 51-58 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00037-8
  11. Dessirier JM, Siffermann JM, O'Mahony M. Taste discrimination by the 3-AFC method: Testing sensitivity predictions regarding particular tasting sequences based on the sequential sensitivity analysis model. J. Sens. Stud. 14: 271-287 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1999.tb00117.x
  12. Masuoka S, Hatjopoulos D, O'Mahony M. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. J. Sens. Stud. 10: 295-306 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1995.tb00021.x
  13. O'Mahony M, Goldstein LR. Effectiveness of sensory difference tests sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. J. Food Sci. 51: 1550-1553 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1986.tb13857.x
  14. O'Mahony M, Goldstein LR. Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: The roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability. Chem. Senses 12: 425-436 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/12.3.425
  15. O'Mahony M, Odbert N. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50: 1055-1058 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1985.tb13011.x
  16. Rousseau B, O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sens. Stud. 12: 127-146 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1997.tb00057.x
  17. Rousseau B, Meyer A, O'Mahony M. Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. J. Sens. Stud. 13: 149-173 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00080.x
  18. Tedja S, Nonaka R, Ennis DM, O'Mahony M. Triadic discrimination testing-refinement of Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis approaches. Chem. Senses 19: 279-301 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/19.4.279
  19. Vie A, O'Mahony M. Triangular difference testing: Refinements of sequential sensitivity analysis for predictions for individual triads. J. Sens. Stud. 4: 87-103 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1989.tb00460.x
  20. Ennis DM, O'Mahony M. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Human 5: 1088-1097 (1995)
  21. Lee HS, O'Mahony M. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18: 369-383 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.04.003
  22. Rousseau B, Stroh S, O'Mahony M. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Qual. Prefer. 13: 39-45 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00055-6