식품과학과 산업 (Food Science and Industry)

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

DOI QR Code

식품 품질관리를 위한 신호탐지이론(SDT) 감각차이식별분석 이론과 생수 품질관리에의 활용

Food quality management using sensory discrimination method based on signal detection theory and its application to drinking water

  • 김민아 (이화여자대학교 식품공학과) ;
  • 심혜민 (농심 식품연구소) ;
  • 이혜성 (이화여자대학교 식품공학과)
  • Kim, Min-A (Department of Food Science and Engineering, ELTEC College of Engineering, EwhaWomans University) ;
  • Sim, Hye-Min (NongShim R&D Nutrition Research Team) ;
  • Lee, Hye-Seong (Department of Food Science and Engineering, ELTEC College of Engineering, EwhaWomans University)
  • 투고 : 2019.02.11
  • 심사 : 2019.03.10
  • 발행 : 2019.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Sensory perception of food/beverage products is one of the most important quality factors to determine consumer acceptability and thus sensory discrimination methodology has been a vital tool for quality management. Signal detection theory(SDT) and Thurstonian modeling provide the most advanced psychometric approach to modeling various discrimination methods. In these theories, perceptual and cognitive decisional factors are considered so that, a fundamental measure of sensory difference (d') can be computed, independent of test methods used. In this paper, sensory discrimination analysis based on SDT and Thurstonian modeling is introduced for more accurate and systematic applications of sensory and hedonic quality management in industry. Ways to realize the statistical power and relative sensitivity of sensory discrimination methods theorized in SDT and Thurstonian modeling in practice, are also discussed by using a case study of the Nongshim quality management program for drinking water in which SDT A-Not A test methodology was further optimized.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bi J. Similarity tests using forced-choice methods in terms of Thurstonian discriminal distance, d′. J. Sens. Stud. 26: 151-157 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00331.x
  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. Ennis JM. Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing. J. Sens. Stud. 27: 223-231 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00386.x
  4. Ennis JM. The year of the tetrad test. J. Sens. Stud. 28: 257-258 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12047
  5. Ennis JM, Christense RHB. A thurstonian comparison of the tetrad and degree of difference tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 40: 263-269 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.004
  6. Ennis JM, Jesionka V. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. J. Sens. Stud. 26: 371-382 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00353.x
  7. Ennis JM, Rousseau B, Ennis DM. Sensory difference tests as measurement instruments: A review of recent advances. J. Sens. Stud. 29: 89-102 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12086
  8. Green DM, Swets JA. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wiley, Oxford, England. (1966)
  9. Ishii R, O'Mahony M, Rousseau B. Triangle and tetrad protocols: Small sensory differences, resampling and consumer relevance. Food Qual. Prefer. 31: 49-55 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.07.007
  10. Jeong YN, Kang BA, Jeong MJ, Song MJ, Hautus MJ, Lee HS. Sensory discrimination by consumers of multiple stimuli from a reference: Stimulus configuration in A-Not AR and constant-ref. duo-trio superior to triangle and unspecified tetrad? Food Qual. Prefer. 47: 10-22 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.021
  11. Jeong YN, van Hout D, Groeneschild C, Lee HS. Comparative identification method: Using 2-AFC strategy in constant-reference duo-trio for discrimination of multiple stimuli from a reference. Food Qual. Prefer. 62: 284-295 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.03.016
  12. Kim IA, Kim HL, Cho HY, Lee HS. Optimal difference test sequence and power for discriminating soups of varying sodium content: DTFM version of dual-reference duo-trio with unspecified tetrad tests. Food Res. Int. 76: 458-465 (2015a) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.06.019
  13. Kim MA, Lee HS. Investigation of operationally more powerful duo- trio test protocols: Effects of different reference schemes. Food Qual. Prefer. 25: 183-191 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.016
  14. Kim MA, Sim HM, Lee HS. Affective discrimination methodology: Determination and use of a consumer-relevant sensory difference for food quality maintenance. Food Res. Int. 70: 47 -54 (2015b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.01.027
  15. Kuesten CL. Sequential use of the triangle, 2-AC, 2-AFC, and same-different methods applied to a cost-reduction effort: Consumer learning acquired throughout testing and influence on preference judgements. Food Qual. Prefer. 12: 447-455 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00036-2
  16. Lawless HT, Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices (2nd ed). Springer, NY, USA. pp. 83-84; 101-123 (2010)
  17. 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
  18. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, NJ, USA. (2005)
  19. McGuire MJ. Off-flavor as the consumer's measure of drinking water safety. Water Sci. Technol. 31: 1-8 (1995) https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1995.0386
  20. Moon JW. Investigation of test performance of dual reminder A-Not A (DR A-Not A) in comparison to 3-AFC for sensory discrimination of drinking water. (Master dissertation). Ewha Womans University, Korea (2016)
  21. Peryam DR. Sensory difference tests. Food Technol. 12: 231-236 (1958)
  22. Peryam DR, Swartz VW. Measurement of sensory differences. Food Technol. 4: 390-395 (1950)
  23. Rousseau B, Ennis JM. Importance of correct instructions in the tetrad test. J. Sens. Stud. 28: 264-269 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12049
  24. Shin HK, Hautus MJ, Lee HS. Unspecified duo-trio tests as powerful as the specified 2-AFC: Effects of instructions and familiarization procedures on cognitive decision strategies. Food Res. Int. 79: 114-125 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.10.012
  25. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34: 273-286 (1927a) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288
  26. Thurstone LL. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 38: 368-389 (1927b) https://doi.org/10.2307/1415006
  27. van Hout D. Measuring meaningful differences: Sensory testing based decision making in an industrial context; applications of Signal detection theory and Thurstonian modelling. (Doctoral dissertation). Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Rotterdam, Nederland (2014)
  28. van Hout D, Hautus MJ, Lee HS. Investigation of test performance over repeated sessions using signal detection theory: Comparison of three non-attribute specified difference tests 2-AFCR, A-Not A and 2-AFC. J. Sens. Stud. 26: 311-321 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00346.x
  29. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO). International standards for drinking-water (3rd ed). (1971)
  30. Zoeteman BCJ. Sensory assessment of water quality. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. pp. 19-33 (1980)