Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discrimination Testing

  • Chapter
Sensory Evaluation of Food

Part of the book series: Food Science Text Series ((FSTS))

Abstract

Discrimination tests in most situations will only allow the sensory specialist to determine that two products perceptibly differ from one another or not. In this chapter we describe the more familiar discrimination tests such as paired comparison, duo–trio, triangle, dual standard, and A-not-A, as well as less used tests such as ABX and sorting tests. Data analysis techniques for these tests are described in detail (binomial, chi-square, z-, and beta-binomial distributions). Additionally, we begin the discussion of the effect of statistical power in sensory tests—this is further discussed in Chapter 5 and the Appendix of the book. The need for replication in sensory discrimination tests and the analysis of these data are discussed. Lastly, we discuss the need for warm-up samples in certain situations and well as some common issues arising from the interpretation of the results of sensory discrimination tests.

Chance favors only those who knows how to court her.

—Charles Nicolle

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M. and Roessler, E. B. 1965. Principles of sensory evaluation. Academic, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amerine, M. A. and Roessler, E. B. 1983. Wines, their sensory evaluation, Second Edition. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amoore, J. E., Venstrom, D. and Davis, A. R. 1968. Measurement of specific anosmia. Perceptual Motor Skills, 26, 143–164.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Amoore, J. 1979. Directions for preparing aqueous solutions of primary odorants to diagnose eight types of specific anosmias. Chemical Senses and Flavour, 4, 153–161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Angulo, O., Lee, H.-S. and O’Mahony, M. 2007. Sensory difference tests, over dispersion and warm-up. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 190–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbary, O., Nonaka, R., Delwiche, J., Chan, J. and O’Mahony, M. 1993. Focused difference testing for the assessment of differences between orange juice made from orange concentrate. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basker, D. 1980. Polygonal and polyhedral taste testing. Journal of Food Quality, 3, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, J. and Ennis, D. M. 2001a. Statistical methods for the A-Not A method. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, J. and Ennis, D. M. 2001b. The power of the A-Not A method. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 343–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, J. 2006. Sensory Discrimination Tests and Measurements: Statistical Principles, Procedures and Tables. Blackwell Publishing Professional, Ames, IA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, P. B. 2003. The statistical power in difference tests. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, P. B. and Christensen, R. H.B. 2009. Thurstonian models for sensory discrimination tests as generalized linear models. Journal of Food Quality and Preference, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.04.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacremont, C., Sauvageot, F. and Ha Duyen, T. 2000. Effect of assessors expertise level on efficiency of warm-up for triangle tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 15, 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, D. M. and Mullen, K. 1986. Theoretical aspects of sensory discrimination. Chemical Senses, 11, 513–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, D. M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijters, J. E. R. 1979. Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic model to three-alternative forced choice signal detection theories. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 32, 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijters, J. E. R. 1984. Sensory difference testing and the measurement of sensory discriminability. In: J. R. Piggott (ed.), Sensory Analysis of Food. Elsevier Applied Science Publications, London, pp.117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frijters, J. E. R., Kooistra, A. and Vereijken, P. F.G. 1980. Tables of d’ for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 176–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gacula, M. C. and Singh, J. 1984. Statistical methods in food and consumer research. Academic, Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, H. and Kalmus, H. 1949. The measurement of taste sensitivity to phenylthiourea. Annals of Eugenics, 15, 24–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y-T., and Lawless, H. T. 1998. Sensitivity of the ABX discrimination test. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 229–239; 8, 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.-J., Jeon, S. Y., Kim, K.-O. and O’Mahony, M. 2006. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, H. C. and Thiemann, S. 1987. How many subjects: Statistical power analysis in research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T. 1980. A comparison of different methods used to assess sensitivity to the taste of phenylthiocarbamide (PTC).Chemical Senses, 5, 247–256.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H-S., and O’Mahony, M. 2007. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liggett, R. A. and Delwiche, J. F. 2005. The beta-binomial model: Variability in over- dispersion across methods and over time. Journal of Sensory Studies, 20, 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., Kaplan, H. L. and Creelman, C. D. 1977. The psychophysics of categorical perception. Psychological Review, 452–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A. and Creelman, C. D. 1991. Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrae, A. W. 1995. Confidence intervals for the triangle test can give reassurance that products are similar. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata-Garcia, M., Angulo, O. and O’Mahony, M. 2007. On warm-up. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, 187–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meilgaard, M., Civille, C. V., and Carr, B. T. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Fourth Edition. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. W. 1956. The effect of assignment of testing materials to the paired and odd position in the duo-trio taste difference test. Journal of Food Technology, 10, 169–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolle, C. 1932. Biologie de l”Invention Alcan Paris, quoted in Beveridge, W. I.B. 1957. The Art of Scientific Investigation, Third Edition. Vintage Books, New York. p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, M. and Goldstein, L. R. 1986. Effectives of sensory difference tests: Sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. Journal of Food Science, 51, 1550–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, M., Wong, S. Y. and Odbert, N. 1986. Sensory difference tests: Some rethinking concerning the general rule that more sensitive tests use fewer stimuli. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie, 19, 93–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, M., Thieme, U. and Goldstein, L. R. 1988. The warm-up effect as a means of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. Journal of Food Science, 53, 1848–1850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pangborn, R. M. and Dunkley, W. L. 1966. Sensory discrimination of milk salts, nondialyzable constituents and algin gum in milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 49, 1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D. R. 1958. Sensory difference tests. Journal of Food Technology, 12, 231–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D. R. and Swartz, V. W. 1950. Measurement of sensory differences. Food Technology, 4, 390–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. R. and Gilbert, E. N. 1958. On AX and ABX limens. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 30, 593–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roessler, E. B., Pangborn, R. M., Sidel. J. L. and Stone, H. 1978. Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in paired-preference, paired difference, duo-trio and triangle tests. Journal of Food Science, 43, 940–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, B., Rogeaux, M. and O’Mahony, M. 1999. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: aspects of irritation, memory and tau criteria. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlich, P. 1993. Risk tables for discrimination tests. Journal of Food Quality and Preference, 4, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. L. 1981. Statistical properties of simple sensory difference tests: Confidence limits and significance tests. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 32, 513–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H. and Sidel, J. L. 1978. Computing exact probabilities in sensory discrimination tests. Journal of Food Science, 43, 1028–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H. and Sidel, J. L. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices, Third Edition. Academic, Elsevier, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thieme, U. and O’Mahony, M. 1990. Modifications to sensory difference test protocols: The warmed-up paired comparison, the single standard duo-trio and the A, not-A test modified for response bias. Journal of Sensory Studies, 5, 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting, R., Murray, S., Ciantic, Z. and Ellison, K. 2004. The use of sensory difference tests to investigate perceptible colour-difference in a cosmetic product. Color Research and Application, 29, 299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Stocking Hall, Room 106, Ithaca, 14853, USA

    Harry T. Lawless

  2. Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California – Davis, 2003 RMI Sensory Building, 95616, Davis, CA, USA

    Hildegarde Heymann

Authors
  1. Harry T. Lawless
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hildegarde Heymann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lawless, H., Heymann, H. (2010). Discrimination Testing. In: Sensory Evaluation of Food. Food Science Text Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6488-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation