Affective discrimination methodology: Determination and use of a consumer-relevant sensory difference for food quality maintenance

Food Research International

Volumn 70, Issue , 2015, Pages 47-54

  Kim, Min A ^a   Sim, Hye Min ^a,b   Lee, Hye Seong ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b NongShim R and D Nutrition Research Team   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Affective reference framing; Business action standard driven from sensory evaluation; Consumer discrimination test; Consumer relevant sensory difference; Preferred reference duo trio test

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; MAINTENANCE; SENSORY ANALYSIS;

AFFECTIVE REFERENCE FRAMING; ANALYTICAL METHOD; BUSINESS OBJECTIVES; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; CONSUMER SENSORY; CONSUMER-RELEVANT SENSORY DIFFERENCE; DISCRIMINATION TESTS; STANDARD-DRIVEN;

TESTING;

EID: 84923058924     PISSN: 09639969     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.01.027     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bi J. Similarity testing in sensory and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:139-149.
2. Bi J. Sensory discrimination tests and measurements: Statistical principles, procedures, and tables 2006, Blackwell Pub, Ames, Iowa. 1st ed.
3. Bi J. Similarity tests using forced-choice methods in terms of Thurstonian discriminal distance, d'. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:151-157.
4. Boutrolle I., Delarue J., Köster E.P., Aranz D., Danzart M. Use of a test of perceived authenticity to trigger affective responses when testing food. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:418-426.
5. Chae J.-E., Lee Y.-M., Lee H.-S. Affective same-different discrimination tests for assessing consumer discriminability between milks with subtle differences. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:427-438.
6. Choi Y.-J., Kim J.-Y., Christensen R.H.B., van Hout D., Lee H.-S. Superior performance of constant-saltier-reference DTF and DTFM to same-different tests by consumers for discriminating products varying sodium contents. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 37:100-108.
7. Christensen R.H.B., Brockhoff P.B. sensR: An R-package for sensory discrimination R-package version 3.1.1. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=sensR/.
8. Christensen R.H.B., Lee H.-S., Brockhoff P.B. Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:119-128.
9. Dijksterhuis G.B., Byrne D.V. Does the mind reflect the mouth? Sensory profiling and the future. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2005, 45:527-534.
10. Ennis J.M., Jesionka V. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:371-382.
11. Ennis J.M., Rousseau B., Ennis D.M. Sensory difference tests as measurement instruments: A review of recent advances. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:89-102.
12. Frandsen L.W., Dijksterhuis G., Brockhoff P., Nielsen J.H., Martens M. Subtle differences in milk: Comparison of an analytical and an affective test. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:515-526.
13. Frandsen L.W., Dijksterhuis G., Brockhoff P., Nielsen J.H., Martens M. Feelings as a basis for discrimination: Comparison of a modified authenticity test with the same-different test for slightly different types of milk. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:97-105.
14. Ishii R., O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Triangle and tetrad protocols: Small sensory differences, resampling and consumer relevance. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:49-55.
15. Jesionka V., Rousseau B., Ennis J.M. Transitioning from proportion of discriminators to a more meaningful measure of sensory difference. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:77-82.
16. Kim M.-A., Chae J.-E., van Hout D., Lee H.-S. Higher performance of constant-reference duo-trio test incorporating affective reference framing in comparison with triangle test. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:113-125.
17. Köster E.P. Les épreuves hédoniques. Evaluation sensorielle, manuel méthodologique 1998, 182-206. Lavoisier, Paris. 2nd ed. F. Depledt, F. Strigler (Eds.).
18. Köster E.P. The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:359-373.
19. Kuesten C.L. 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 Quality and Preference 2001, 12:447-455.
20. Lawless H.T. Quantitative sensory analysis: Psychophysics, models and intelligent design 2013, Wiley Blackwell, New Jersey.
21. MacRae A.W., Geelhoed E.N. Preference can be more powerful than detection of oddity as a test of discriminability. Perception & Psychophysics 1992, 51:179-181.
22. McClure S., Lawless H. Comparison of the triangle and a self-defined two alternative forced choice test. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:547-552.
23. Mojet J., Köster E.P. Investigation into the appreciation of three low-alcohol beers (in Dutch) 1986, Utrecht University: Report Psychological Laboratory (confidential research report).
24. O'Mahony M., Thieme U., Goldstein L.R. The warm-up effect as a means of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. Journal of Food Science 1988, 53:1848-1850.
25. Olivas R., Lopez-Malo A., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. The same-different method: Positive effects of reduced memory load versus negative effects of uncontrolled τ-criterion variation, using forced-choice methods as a comparison. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:211-218.
26. Prescott J. Flavour as a psychological construct: Implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:349-356.
27. Prescott J. Interactions between cognitive processes and hedonic states (abstract no O.1). Abstracts: Sixth Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium 2005, Harrogate International Centre, North Yorkshire, UK, (Elsevier, Oxford, UK).
28. R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2014, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, (URL http://www.R-project.org/).
29. Rousseau B., Meyer A., O'Mahony M. Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:149-173.
30. Rousseau B., Rogeaux M., O'Mahony M. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and s criteria. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:173-184.
31. Rousseau B., Stroh S., O'Mahony M. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:39-45.
32. Thieme U., O'Mahony M. 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 1990, 5:159-176.
33. van Hout D. Measuring meaningful differences: Sensory testing based decision making in an industrial context; applications of Signal detection theory and Thurstonian modelling 2014, (Doctoral dissertation). (No. EPS-2014-304-MKT), Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), (Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/50387).
34. Xia Y., Zhang J., Zhang X., Ishii R., Zhong F., O'Mahony M. Tetrads, triads and pairs: Experiments in self-specification. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 40:97-105.
35. Zwickel J., Prinz W. Assimilation and contrast: The two sides of specific interference between action and perception. Psychological Research 2012, 76:171-182.