Sensory evaluation techniques

Handbook of Food Analysis Second Edition: Physical Characterization and Nutrient Analysis

Volumn 1, Issue , 2004, Pages 21-37

  Rousseau, Benoît ^a  

^a The Institute for Perception   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; DIGITAL STORAGE; FOOD STORAGE;

FOOD INDUSTRIES; INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS; ITS APPLICATIONS; PERSONAL CARE INDUSTRY; SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS; SENSORY MEASUREMENT; SENSORY PROPERTIES; SENSORY TECHNIQUES;

SENSORY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84930062613     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (44)

1. M O’Mahony. Sensory measurement in food science—fitting methods to goals. Food Technol 49:72-82, 1995.
2. M O’Mahony. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical Methods and Procedures. New York, Basel: Marcel Dekker, 1986.
3. J Delwiche, M O’Mahony. Flavour discrimination—an extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Qual Pref 7:1–5, 1996.
4. JER Frijters. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem Senses Flavor 4:355-358, 1979.
5. AJ Byer, D Abrams. A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods. Food Technol 7:185-187, 1953.
6. NT Gridgeman. A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences. J Food Sci 35:87-91, 1970.
7. S Masuoka, D Hatjopoulos, M O’Mahony. Beer bitterness detection: testing Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. J Sensory Stud 10:295-306, 1995.
8. B Rousseau, M O’Mahony. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J Sensory Stud 12:127-146, 1997.
9. JA Stillman. Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance. Percept Psychophys 54: 190–194, 1993.
10. DM Ennis, J Bi. The beta-binomial model: accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. J Sensory Stud 13:389-412, 1998.
11. DM Ennis, J Bi. The Dirichlet-multinomial model: accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated ratings. J Sensory Stud 14:321-345, 1999.
12. KO Kim, M O’Mahony. A new approach to category scales of intensity. I. Traditional versus rank rating. J Sensory Stud 13:241-249, 1998.
13. BG Green, GS Shaffer, MM Gilmore. Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chem Senses 18:683-702, 1993.
14. GJ Newell, JD MacFarlane. Expanded tables for multiple comparison procedures in the analysis of ranked data. J Food Sci 52:1721–1725, 1987.
15. M O’Mahony, C Marchisano. Food choice: what happens in a preference test when there should be no preference? Proceedings of the 4th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Dijon, France, 2001, p 29.
16. LL Thurstone. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34:273-286, 1927.
17. M O’Mahony, S Masuoka, R Ishii. A theoretical note on difference tests: models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J Sensory Stud 9:247-272, 1994.
18. B Rousseau. The β-strategy: an alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests. J Sensory Stud 16:301-318, 2001.
19. KO Kim, DM Ennis, M O’Mahony. A new approach to category scales of intensity. II. Use of d0 values. J Sensory Stud 13:251-267, 1998.
20. DM Ennis. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J Sensory Stud 8:353-370, 1993.
21. JM Ennis, DM Ennis, D Yip, M O’Mahony. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. Br J Math Stat Psychol 51:205-215, 1998.
22. B Rousseau, DM Ennis. A Thurstonian model for the dual-pair (41AX) discrimination method. Percept Psychophys 63:1083-1090, 2001.
23. NA Macmillan, CD Creelman. Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
24. MJ Hacker, R Ratcliff. A revised table of d0 for M-alternative forced choice. Percept Psychophys 26: 168–170, 1979.
25. J Bi, DM Ennis. The power of the “A”–“Not A” method. J Sensory Stud 16:343–359, 2001.
26. JM Dessirier, M O’Mahony. Comparison of d0 values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power. Food Qual Pref 10:1–8, 1999.
27. B Rousseau, A Meyer, M O’Mahony. Power and sensitivity of the same–different test: Comparison with triangle and duo–trio methods J Sensory Stud 13: 149–173, 1998.
28. B Rousseau, M Rogeaux, M O’Mahony. Mustard discrimination by same–different and triangle tests: aspects of irritation, memory and _ criteria. Food Qual Pref 10:173-184, 1999.
29. B Rousseau, M O’Mahony. Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dualpair, same–different and triangle paradigms. Food Qual Pref 11:457-464, 2000.
30. B Rousseau, M O’Mahony. Investigation of the dualpair method as a possible alternative to the triangle and same–different tests. J Sensory Stud 16:161-178, 2001.
31. B Rousseau, S Stroh, M O’Mahony. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: effects of memory and response bias. Food Qual Pref 13:39-45, 2002.
32. JA Stillman, RJ Irwin. Advantages of the same– different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. J Sensory Stud 10:261-272, 1995.
33. T Koo, KO Kim, M O’Mahony. Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (Green scale). J Sensory Stud 17:177-192, 2002.
34. HJ Lee, KO Kim, M O’Mahony. Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales of intensity. J Sensory Stud 16:327-342, 2001.
35. P Juslin, H Olsson. Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: a sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychol Rev 104:344-366, 1997.
36. WE Cairncross, LB Sjöström. Flavor profile—a new approach to flavor problems. Food Technol 11: 308–311, 1950.
37. LB Sjo stro m. The descriptive analysis of flavor. In: DR Peryam, FJ Pilgrim MS Peterson, eds. Food Acceptance Testing Methodology. Chicago: Quatermaster Food and Container Institute, 1954, pp 25–61.
38. MA Brandt, EZ Skinner, JA Coleman. The texture profile method. J Food Sci 28:404–409, 1963.
39. AS Szczesniak. Classification of textural characteristics. J Food Sci 28:385-389, 1963.
40. AS Szczesniak, MA Brandt, HH Friedman. Development of standard rating scales for mechanical parameters of texture and correlation between the objective and the sensory methods of texture evaluation. J Food Sci 28:397-403, 1963.
41. M Meilgaard, GV Civille, BT Carr. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999.
42. H Stone, JL Sidel, S Oliver, A Woolsey, RC Singleton. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technol 28:24-34, 1974.
43. HT Lawless, H Heymann. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1998.
44. H Stone, JL Sidel. Sensory Evaluation Practices. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1993.