The Power Of Sensory Discrimination Methods Revisited

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 371-382

  Ennis, John M ^a   Jesionka, Virginie ^b  

^a Institute for Perception   (United States)

^b O P and P Product Research BV   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; NORMAL APPROXIMATION; POWER ANALYSIS; POWER FUNCTIONS; RESOURCE SAVINGS; SAMPLE SIZES; TESTING METHOD; TESTING RESULTS;

NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; TESTING;

SAMPLING;

EID: 80053530078     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00353.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. AMERINE, M.A., PANGBORN, R.M. and ROESSLER, E.B. 1965. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food, Academic Press, New York, NY.
2. BAKER, G.A., AMERINE, M.A. and ROESSLER, E.B. 1954. Errors of the second kind in organoleptic difference testing. J. Food Sci. 19, 206-210. Wiley Online Library.
3. BI, J. 2011. Similarity tests using forced-choice methods in terms of Thurstonian discriminal distance, d'. J. Sensory Studies 26, 151-157.
4. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 1999. The power of sensory discrimination methods used in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 14, 289-302.
5. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 2001. The power of the "A"-"Not A" method. J. Sensory Studies 16, 343-359.
6. BI, J., LEE, H.-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2010. d' and variance of d' for four-alternative forced choice (4-AFC). J. Sensory Studies 25, 740-750.
7. BROCKHOFF, P.B. and CHRISTENSEN, R.H.B. 2010. Thurstonian models for sensory discrimination tests as generalized linear models. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 330-338. Elsevier.
8. BYER, A.J. and ABRAMS, D. 1953. A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods. Food Technol. 7, 185-187.
9. CHERNICK, M.R. and LIU, C.Y. 2002. The saw-toothed behavior of power versus sample size and software solutions. Am. Stat. 56, 149-155. ASA.
10. COX, D.R. 1958. Planning of Experiments, pp. 154-190, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
11. DAVID, H.A. and TRIVEDI, M.C. 1962. Pair, triangle and duo-trio tests (Technical Report 55). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Department of Statistics.
12. DELWICHE, J. and O'MAHONY, M. 1996. Flavour discrimination - an extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad test. Food Qual. Prefer. 7, 1-5.
13. DESSIRIER, J.-M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. 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, 1-8.
14. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114, 116-117.
15. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
16. ENNIS, J.M. 2011. Busting the myth that the power of the 3-AFC over the triangle comes from attribute awareness. Presentation given at the Spring 2011 ASTM meeting in Anaheim, CA. Available at (accessed June 1, 2011).
17. ENNIS, J.M., ENNIS, D.M., YIP, D. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. Thurstonian models for variants of the tetrad test. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 51, 205-215.
18. ENNIS, D.M., ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, J.M. 2011. Short Stories in Sensory and Consumer Science, IFPress, Richmond, VA.
19. FELLER, W. 1945. On the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Ann. Math. Stat. 16, 319-329. JSTOR.
20. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses 4, 355-358.
21. GOOD, P.I. and HARDIN, J.W. 2009. Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them), John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
22. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Wiley, New York, NY.
23. GRIDGEMAN, N.T. 1970. A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences. J. Food Sci. 35, 87-91.
24. HACKER, M.J. and RATCLIFF, R. 1979. A revised table of d' for M-alternative forced choice. Percept Psychophys 26, 168-170.
25. HOPKINS, J.W. and GRIDGEMAN, N.T. 1955. Comparative sensitivity of pair and triad flavor intensity difference tests. Biometrics 11, 63-68.
26. LAWLESS, H.T. and HEYMANN, H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, pp. 101-123, Springer Verlag, New York, NY.
27. LESSCHAEVE, I. and ISSANCHOU, S. 1995. Olfactory memory performance effects of sensory experience, familarity and label use consistency. Chem. Senses 20, 114-115.
28. LONGMATE, J.A. 2003. Comment on Chernick and Liu: The saw-toothed behavior of power versus sample size and software solutions.
29. MASUOKA, S., HATJOPOULOS, D. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad tests. J. Sensory Studies 10, 295-306.
30. MCCLURE, S. and LAWLESS, H.T. 2010. Comparison of the triangle and a self-defined two alternative forced choice test. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 547-552.
31. MEILGAARD, M.C., CIVILLE, G.V. and CARR, T.B. 1991. Sensory Evaluation Technique, 2nd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
32. MEYNERS, M. and BROCKHOFF, P.B. 2003. The design of replicated difference tests. J. Sensory Studies 18, 291-324. Wiley Online Library.
33. NÆS, T., BROCKHOFF, P.B. and TOMIĆ, O. 2010. Statistics for Sensory and Consumer Science. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
34. O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 227-238.
35. O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2002. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 157-164.
36. POKORNÝ, J., MARCIN, A. and DAVIDEK, J. 1981. Comparison of the efficiency of triangle and tetrad tests for discriminatory sensory analysis of food. Nahrung 25, 561-564.
37. RADKINS, A.P. 1957. Some statistical considerations in organoleptic research: Triangle, paired, duo-trio tests. J. Food Sci. 22, 259-265. Wiley Online Library.
38. ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, D.M. 2007. Why proportion of discriminators is method-specific. IFPress 10, 2-3.
39. ROUSSEAU, B., MEYER, A. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. J. Sensory Studies 13, 149-173.
40. ROUSSEAU, B., STROH, S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2002. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Qual. Prefer. 13, 39-45.
41. SCHLICH, P. 1993. Risk tables for discrimination tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 4, 141-151. Elsevier.
42. STONE, H. and SIDEL, J.L. 1985. Sensory Evaluation Practices, pp. 132-193, Academic Press Inc., Orlando, FL.
43. TEDJA, S. and NONAKA, R. 1994. Triadic discrimination testing: Refinement of Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis approaches. Chem. Senses 19, 279-301.
44. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.
45. URA, S. 1960. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Repts. Stat. Appl. Res. Union Jpn. Sci. Eng. 7, 107-119.