DK9848_C057.

qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-1

57 Sensory Science: Methodology

Joel L. Sidel and Herbert Stone
Tragon Corporation, Redwood City

CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Overview ..................................................................................................................................57-3

A. Historical Background ................................................................................................................................57-3
B. Defining Sensory Evaluation ......................................................................................................................57-3
C. Classification of Sensory Methods ..............................................................................................................57-4
D. Sensory vs. Instrumental Testing ................................................................................................................57-4
II. Sensory Evaluation Facilities ..............................................................................................................................57-5
A. Testing ..........................................................................................................................................................57-5
1. Reception Area ......................................................................................................................................57-5
2. Test Kitchen Area ..................................................................................................................................57-5
3. Sensory Booths ....................................................................................................................................57-6
B. Panel Training ..............................................................................................................................................57-6
C. Administration ..............................................................................................................................................57-6
D. Satellite Facilities ........................................................................................................................................57-6
III. Organizing Sensory Panels ..................................................................................................................................57-6
A. Recruiting Subjects ......................................................................................................................................57-6
B. Screening and Qualifying Subjects ..............................................................................................................57-6
C. Scheduling Subjects ....................................................................................................................................57-7
D. Personal Requirements ................................................................................................................................57-7
E. Test Orientation and Instructions ................................................................................................................57-7
F. Incentives and Motivation ............................................................................................................................57-7
G. Performance Records ..................................................................................................................................57-7
IV. Applications ........................................................................................................................................................57-7
A. Product Development ..................................................................................................................................57-7
1. New Product Development ..................................................................................................................57-7
2. Pilot Plant Scale-Up ..............................................................................................................................57-8
3. Cost Reduction ......................................................................................................................................57-8
4. Ingredient/Process Change ....................................................................................................................57-8
5. Ingredients/Purchase Specifications ....................................................................................................57-8
B. Product Quality ............................................................................................................................................57-8
1. Sensory Specification ............................................................................................................................57-8
2. Production Benchmarking ....................................................................................................................57-9
3. Manufacture Quality ............................................................................................................................57-9
4. Shelf-Life and Stability ........................................................................................................................57-9
5. Distribution Product ..............................................................................................................................57-9
C. Marketing ....................................................................................................................................................57-9
1. Monitor Competition ............................................................................................................................57-9
2. Advertising/Claim Support ..................................................................................................................57-9
3. Category Review ..................................................................................................................................57-9
4. Product Optimization ............................................................................................................................57-9
V. Discrimination Methods ....................................................................................................................................57-10
A. General Requirements ................................................................................................................................57-10
1. Subject Selection ................................................................................................................................57-10

57-1

© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-2

57-2 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2

2. Test Design, N, and Replication ........................................................................................................57-10

3. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................57-10
B. Non-Directional Discrimination Tests ......................................................................................................57-10
1. A-Not-A Sequential Presentation ......................................................................................................57-10
2. A-Not-A Simultaneous Presentation ................................................................................................57-10
3. Duo-Trio ............................................................................................................................................57-11
4. Triangle ..............................................................................................................................................57-11
5. Matching and Sorting Tests ..............................................................................................................57-11
C. Directional Discrimination Tests ..............................................................................................................57-11
1. Paired Difference ..............................................................................................................................57-11
2. n-Alternative Forced-Choice..............................................................................................................57-11
VI. Descriptive Methods..........................................................................................................................................57-11
A. Flavor Profile ............................................................................................................................................57-12
B. Texture Profile ..........................................................................................................................................57-12
C. Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) ................................................................................................57-13
1. Subjects ..............................................................................................................................................57-13
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015

2. Screening............................................................................................................................................57-13
3. Training ..............................................................................................................................................57-14
4. Testing................................................................................................................................................57-14
5. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................57-14
D. Sensory Spectrum Analysis ......................................................................................................................57-14
E. Free-Choice Profiling................................................................................................................................57-14
F. Other Methods ..........................................................................................................................................57-15
VII. Time-Intensity Scaling......................................................................................................................................57-15
A. Measurement ............................................................................................................................................57-15
B. Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................57-16
VIII. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................57-16
A. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................................57-16
1. Central Tendency ..............................................................................................................................57-16
2. Dispersion ..........................................................................................................................................57-17
3. Frequency Distributions ....................................................................................................................57-17
B. Inferential Statistics ..................................................................................................................................57-17
1. Non-Parametric ..................................................................................................................................57-17
2. Parametric ..........................................................................................................................................57-18
C. Correlation and Regression ......................................................................................................................57-18
1. Correlation ........................................................................................................................................57-18
2. Multiple Correlation (R) ....................................................................................................................57-19
3. Regression..........................................................................................................................................57-19
D. Additional Multivariate Methods..............................................................................................................57-19
1. Multivariate Analysis-of-Variance (MANOVA) ................................................................................57-19
2. Discriminate Analysis ........................................................................................................................57-19
3. Principle Components Analysis ........................................................................................................57-19
4. Factor Analysis ..................................................................................................................................57-19
5. Cluster Analysis ................................................................................................................................57-19
IX. Visual Presentation ..........................................................................................................................................57-19
A. Histograms ................................................................................................................................................57-20
B. QDA Spider Charts ..................................................................................................................................57-21
C. Sensory Maps............................................................................................................................................57-21
X. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................57-23
References ....................................................................................................................................................................57-24

© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-3
Sensory Science: Methodology
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Measuring the sensory properties of foods and relating these
properties to consumer acceptance is a major objective and
accomplishment for sensory evaluation. These achieve-
ments are possible as a direct result of advances in the sci-
ence, development of valid and reliable methods, education
of research and application professionals, development of
cost efficient and well run sensory programs, and institu-
tions and commercial companies that support these pro-
grams. The latter is directly related to the expected and
realized commercial benefit of sensory tests.
This chapter provides the reader with an overview of
sensory evaluation, its uses and limitations. We highlight
important developments, current thinking and the current
status of the science. The interested reader will find more
detail in several books published on the topic, most nota-
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
bly, Lawless and Heymann (1), Stone and Sidel (2), and
Amerine, Pangborn, and Roessler (3).
A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The food industry, similar to other consumer product indus-
tries, traditionally viewed sensory evaluation in the context
of the technical “experts” who through education (e.g.,
learning to judge the quality of dairy products as part of
dairy science education) and years of accumulated experi-
ence were able to describe company products and set stan-
dards of quality by which raw materials would be purchased
and products manufactured and marketed. Three noteworthy
developments led companies to evolve away from reliance
on the single technical expert, and to reliance on formal sen-
sory panels and procedures. First, products became more
complex, and technical experts were less able to predict con-
sumer acceptance. Second, companies could not wait the
2 or more years for an “apprentice” to assume evaluation
responsibilities. Thirdly, the emerging field of sensory eval-
uation was demonstrating the need for, and value of, formal,
unbiased, and statistically relevant procedures for qualifying
subjects, evaluating products, and communicating action-
able results.
During the 1940s and 1950s, sensory evaluation
received additional impetus through the U.S. Army’s Quar-
termaster Food and Container Institute, which supported
research in food acceptance for the armed forces (4). It
became apparent to the military that adequate nutrition, as
measured by analysis of diets or preparation of elaborate
menus, did not guarantee food acceptance and consump-
tion by military personnel. The importance of the sensory
components of food was acknowledged, and resources
allocated to studies for determining how best to measure
food acceptability. Several psychologists were hired by the
military to develop methods for measuring food accept-
ance, and this practice was continued when the Army’s
food research laboratories were moved to Natick, MA in
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-3
the 1960s. The original group of psychologists chose to
not participate in the move to Natick. They disseminated
their knowledge and interest in sensory evaluation further
into the food industry by joining product companies (e.g.,
Coca Cola, Pillsbury, and General Mills), contract research
organizations (e.g., Battelle Memorial Institute) or founding
research companies (e.g., Peryam and Kroll Corporation).
Government and industry interest in sensory evalua-
tion encouraged additional developments. For example, in
the 1950s the Arthur D. Little Company introduced the
Flavor Profile Method (discussed below), a qualitative form
of descriptive analysis that did not rely on an individual
expert, and formalized subject screening and training pro-
cedures. Private contract research companies continue to
play an important role through sponsoring workshops,
developing proprietary methods, assisting product compa-
nies establish internal sensory capabilities, and conducting
research studies.
By the mid-1950s, a few universities were offering a
series of courses in sensory evaluation; most notably the
University of California at Davis (UCD). Many students
from the U.S. and abroad introduced the science into com-
panies, while others went on to teach the science at the uni-
versity level. Currently, a wide range of universities and
technical institutes worldwide offer programs in sensory
evaluation, and in 2002 UCD initiated a sensory course
online: “Applied Sensory Science and Consumer Testing
Certificate Program for Distance Learners.”
Also during the era of the 1950s and 1960s, various
technical and scientific societies organized activities and
published procedures focusing on sensory evaluation and
the measurement of flavor. These included Committee
E-18 of the American Society Testing and Materials, the
Food and Agriculture Section of the American Chemical
Society, the European Chemoreception Organization, and
the Sensory Evaluation Division of the Institute of Food
Technologists.
B. DEFINING SENSORY EVALUATION
The Sensory Evaluation Division of the Institute of Food
Technologists defined sensory evaluation as “a scientific
discipline used to evoke, measure, analyze and interpret
reactions to those characteristics of foods and materials as
they are perceived by the senses of sight, smell, taste,
touch and hearing” (5). This definition emphasizes several
important points, including 1) the scientific focus of the
discipline, correctly distancing the discipline from art and
opinion; 2) although implied and not directly stated, the
foods and materials represent physical, rather than cogita-
tive, stimuli; 3) implicit in the definition is the concept of
the measurement and analysis of perceptions from infor-
mation obtained through the five senses; and 4) the defi-
nition forwards a distinction between the perceived
characteristics of foods and materials and their actual
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-4
57-4 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
physical properties. To this latter point, the definition
focuses on the importance of perception for understanding
the impact of a product’s physical properties; implicit in this
is the notion that in sensory evaluation “perception is real-
ity.” This has enormous implications on determining how
subjects are selected, and, when necessary, trained, what
sensory evaluation should measure, and the measurement
method.
The evolution of sensory evaluation as an independent
discipline in the 1940s and 1950s produced unique meth-
ods for determining difference. These and other sensory
method developments are a reminder that although they
have a common lineage, psychophysics and sensory eval-
uation have very different objectives. Sensory evaluation
focuses on measuring the responses of people to products,
and application of findings to action-oriented decisions
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
about products. Psychophysics focuses on the measure-
ment process and explaining the behavioral mechanisms
behind sensory responses. Both objectives are important,
and each has its own criteria for success.
C. CLASSIFICATION OF SENSORY METHODS
There are several sensory methods, differentiated primarily
by objective, measurement procedure, subject qualification,
and various combinations of these factors; and new methods
continue to be developed. As reported in Stone and Sidel (2),
sensory tests are classified primarily by type of test in a three-
category classification system, which are: discriminative,
descriptive, and affective tests. (We view discriminative and
descriptive as analytical tests and thus could consider two
categories; analytical and affective tests.) There are several
different tests within each class, and they are described in
greater detail later. Discrimination tests measure whether
there is a perceived difference between products, descriptive
tests measure perceived attributes and their intensities for
a product, and affective tests measure product acceptance or
preference. Affective tests are discussed in the current
handbook under the topic of Consumer Testing.
D. SENSORY VS. INSTRUMENTAL TESTING
The development of instruments to measure food and bev-
erage characteristics such as appearance, aroma, taste, and
texture has a very long history, as has research into corre-
lating instrumental and sensory measures. Interest in this
relationship in the food and beverage industry is based in
part because it represents a potential means of reducing
reliance on the human judgment, which some view as vari-
able and subjective. Value, efficiency, and economy are
possible where instrumental measures can be effectively
substituted for sensory measures. This is especially true in
product quality assessment.
An extensive literature is available describing sen-
sory/instrumental relationships for texture measurement,
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
where mechanical devices for measuring texture have been
described in the literature for more than a century. Bourne
(6) provided an excellent review of the subject describing
mechanical devices to measure product changes, particu-
larly the fruit ripening process, or to simulate the chewing
process to measure meat tenderness. The interested reader
is also referred to the Journal of Texture Studies, especially
the publications of A.S. Szczesniak and her collaborators.
While such mechanical devices have undergone substan-
tive change in terms of sensitivity, measurement, design,
etc., the basic principles have remained unchanged, to wit,
creating a mechanical device to measure what humans
perceive.
The main difficulty in simulating sensory behavior by
an instrument is due to the complex simultaneous activity
ongoing in the mouth during eating and drinking. The upper
jaw remains stationary while the lower jaw is capable of sev-
eral different motions to hold, bite, tear, and masticate. At
the same time, the highly muscled tongue gathers, moves,
and compresses stimuli, the salivary glands contribute mois-
ture and lubricant to the process, and swallowing provides
control of volume in the mouth while momentarily limit-
ing intake to the mouth. To our knowledge, this multi-
dimensional activity cannot be reproduced with current
instrumentation.
The history of odor detection has always included both
human and instrument systems. The earliest instruments
began with measuring total volatiles. This was followed by
development of chromatographic techniques and gas-liquid
chromatography (GLC) which enabled separation of chem-
icals as well as ability to separate specific chemicals at
very low concentrations; e.g., ppm (parts per million), ppb
(parts per billion) and less, to facilitate their identification.
Subsequent developments enabled integration of the chro-
matographic separation with even more sophisticated
instrumentation such as mass spectroscopy to more pre-
cisely clarify chemical structure, and so forth. Amerine et
al. (3) describe limitations and early efforts to combine
GLC with sensory panel results. Volatiles from foods are
trapped and collected for sensory evaluation. Later refine-
ments included development of equipment containing mul-
tiple odor ports that delivered the separated odorant at
prescribed dilutions simultaneously to sensory panel mem-
bers. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry are used
to analyze perceived odors, and Noble (7) described the
use of instrumental analysis for the sensory properties of
foods.
During this same time period, Schutz, Veley, and Iden
(8) and Wilkens and Hartman (9) described their efforts to
devise other systems for the detection of odorants. Schutz
and co-workers investigated use of specific enzyme sys-
tems associated with olfactory tissue that were reactive
to odorants and correlated results with the physical and
chemical properties of those odorants. At the time, the con-
straints of separation technology, enzyme stability, and
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-5
Sensory Science: Methodology
related issues impeded further development of this
approach. Wilkens and Hartman, on the other hand, took
a very different approach to the problem; they devised an
instrument, an electronic analog that relied on microelec-
trodes made from combinations of metallic wires for the
detection of odorants. These authors were able to demon-
strate differential response sensitivity to various volatile
chemicals with just a few microelectrode metal combina-
tions. Today’s “Electronic Noses” and “Electronic Tongues”
represent significant advances in electrode specificity,
sensitivity to individual chemicals, use of computer chip
technology for analyses, and in accessing pattern recogni-
tion and neural network statistics as an aid in data inter-
pretation (10, 11, 12, and 13). Bleibaum et al. (11)
concluded from their research “the electronic tongue and
electronic nose, in combination, can be used to predict the
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
sensory characteristics and their relationship to the qual-
ity of apple juices measured by consumers.” The degree to
which these odor and taste detection instruments, or those
yet to be developed, are incorporated into routine product
development and quality control activities will depend on
how well they correlate to important sensory measures,
and are economical and safe to operate in those respective
environments.
Correlating sensory flavor attributes and chemical
measures has become almost routine in research and qual-
ity control, as has correlating sensory and Hunter color
measures. Instrumental and sensory correlations also have
been described for visual clarity and turbidity (14).
Before leaving this topic, we are reminded that sensory
information is uniquely different than information obtained
from a physical instrument (a point often overlooked when
creating a mechanical system to substitute for a physiolog-
ical system). It represents the relatively simultaneous inte-
gration of information from all the senses, in conjunction
with cognitive factors that include learning and expectation.
In this sense, sensory information is multidimensional
whereas instrumental information is almost entirely one
dimensional. Although we can instruct subjects to not pay
attention to certain attributes, it is false to assume that those
attributes do not influence the subject or his response.
Instruments can be useful in sensory evaluation when there
is a good understanding of the relationship between those
measures, sensory perception, and consumer behavior. At
present such relationships are the exception, and consid-
erably more needs to be accomplished before instruments
represent a practical alternative to sensory measures.
II. SENSORY EVALUATION FACILITIES
The typical sensory evaluation facility in a R&D center
consists of separate areas for testing, panel training, and
administration. Satellite facilities are sometimes required
to accommodate testing that cannot be accomplished in
the immediate vicinity of the research center.
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-5
A. TESTING
A product evaluation area typically consists of the following
three functional areas, adjacent to one another and sepa-
rated by walls and doors for easy communication and pas-
sage. This area is best located for its ease of accessibility to
the subjects and for its low level of odors, noise, and vibra-
tion associated with more intense R&D and manufacturing
activities.
1. Reception Area
The reception area is typically a well-lit and comfortable
room located off a main corridor, and offering easy access
to the test area. It is equipped with a receptionist desk and
chair, telephone for contacting subjects, comfortable chairs
where subjects are either seated while receiving instruc-
tions or where they wait prior to proceeding to an assigned
sensory booth. A blackboard or bulletin board is located
on a wall near the receptionist desk and identifies the prod-
uct category and number of products that are to be tested
in the session. A table is also provided for those situations
where subjects are offered a reward, or “treat” (juice, cof-
fee, cookies, candy, etc.), immediately following participa-
tion in a test. The room should allow easy access to, yet
visual separation from, the sensory booth area to minimize
distraction from early arriving subjects to subjects still
seated in the sensory booths. The dimensions for the recep-
tion area depend on the number of subjects it has to accom-
modate prior to their proceeding to the sensory booths.
2. Test Kitchen Area
The test kitchen area and materials used in this area typi-
cally represent a well-equipped commercial, or heavy duty
home, kitchen. The area must accommodate preparation
and cleanup equipment, equipment and supply storage,
product preparation, holding and serving activities, and
workstations for kitchen staff. One or two large central
islands for product preparation, showings, and holding for
serving are recommended, and these must allow for unen-
cumbered foot traffic flow around them during product
preparation and serving. Airflow from this area is an impor-
tant consideration, and food preparation aromas from here
must be exhausted away from the sensory booths. Serving
counters need to be high enough to minimize posture
stress during serving, and wide enough to accommodate
products, supplies, and scorecards for subjects seated in sen-
sory booths with pass through into in the serving area. All
under- and above-counter space should be utilized for stor-
age, and an adjacent storage room is recommended where
possible. A door from the kitchen to the reception area will
facilitate any needed communication between the recep-
tionist and kitchen staff, and provide easy access to treats
and materials needed to clean and maintain the reception
area. Telephones in this area should be equipped with a
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-6
57-6 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
visual alert, so that the auditory alert may be turned off
during testing.
3. Sensory Booths
Individual sensory booths need to minimize visual and other
potential distractions to the subjects from one another, from
the kitchen, and from the reception area during the evalu-
ation process. Dimensions, surface colors and materials,
lighting, ventilation, pass-through structure, expectoration
system, signal system, and direct data entry systems must
be considered when designing sensory booths for food
research. Clean filtered air should flow into the booth area,
and air should flow from the booths to the kitchen, and not
the reverse. The interested reader will find useful booth
design information in several texts, and is directed to
Eggert and Zook (15) and Stone and Sidel (2) for additional
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
detail. Most sensory booths are permanent structures; how-
ever, temporary booths can be constructed from sturdy
coated art board or plywood, and these can be made col-
lapsible or foldable with hinges or fitted slots for portability.
Temporary booths can be moved to off site testing locations.
B. PANEL TRAINING
Open discussion is required at various times during panel
training, and these discussions can be held in a conference
room, focus group facility, or a dedicated training room. The
room should be proximal to the test kitchen or product
preparation area, be readily accessible by subjects and sen-
sory staff, and free from distraction as described above.
Sufficient blackboard, wall, or easel space is required to
accommodate attribute lists developed by the panel during
training. A one-way mirror to an adjacent viewing room,
equipped with video and audio taping capabilities, can
accommodate observers without distracting subjects during
training.
C. ADMINISTRATION
The staff required to support project planning, report writ-
ing, data processing, and general administrative functions
should be located in a common area accessible from a
main corridor and near to the test kitchen. Access to the
administrative area should not require passage through the
test area.
D. SATELLITE FACILITIES
Most sensory tests are conducted in well equipped labora-
tories as described above and are associated with company
headquarters and a main research center. Tests also may be
conducted in locations specific to product quality mainte-
nance and production. Such satellite facilities are smaller,
as they require less preparation equipment and space, and
fewer booths. Regardless of where done, the same general
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
rules for maintaining these locations apply; that is, a clean,
quiet, and distraction-free test environment.
III. ORGANIZING SENSORY PANELS
There are several steps to developing and organizing effec-
tive sensory panels. Subjects must be recruited and quali-
fied, must participate in tests, be motivated, and have their
performance monitored.
A. RECRUITING SUBJECTS
Subjects for sensory panels may be recruited from a gen-
eral population of consumers local to the sensory facility,
or from a company’s employee list. Because sensory panel
membership is performance related, the decision about
which group is best to recruit is influenced by factors of con-
venience, cost and availability. Subjects may be recruited
randomly by telephone, mall intercept, or electronically.
Alternatively, recruitment notices can be sent to prospective
subjects, or posted in locations frequented by them. The
recruitment notice should state that people interested in
joining a food evaluation panel are being sought, and
individuals who qualify will be required to participate for
1 to 3 hours a day for an extended period of time. People
responding positively to the recruitment request are
screened further for their availability and willingness to
evaluate specific food categories that will be tested. To
reduce early panel attrition, it is advisable that subjects are
likers and users of foods in the category. Twenty-five to
thirty interested and qualified subjects should be invited
for sensory screening.
B. SCREENING AND QUALIFYING SUBJECTS
Sensory panels require subjects who are qualified based
on their sensory skills and availability. A variety of tests
are used to determine sensory skills, with some being
method specific (e.g., Texture Profile®). Most popular, but
not most useful, screening methods used by sensory pro-
fessionals are: basic taste and odor thresholds, basic taste
intensity ranking, identification of selected taste and odor
compounds, texture stimuli for texture-specific panels, and
discrimination of simple compounds and more complex
finished products. Successful screening, especially when
based on the latter procedure, can eliminate poor per-
forming subjects, but does not guarantee successful per-
formance. No evidence has been provided that demonstrates
that threshold testing or use of “standards” actually iden-
tifies better performing subjects. However, eliminating
subjects who cannot discriminate product difference at bet-
ter than chance has proven to be a good predictor and is suf-
ficient justification for continuing the latter practice. For
discrimination and descriptive panels we recommend using
discrimination screening tests within the test product
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-7
Sensory Science: Methodology
category. Screening should involve at least ten product
pairs, given in replicate, covering all sensory modalities
and increasing in difficulty from easy (85 to 100% success
rate) to very difficult (50% or less success rate).
C. SCHEDULING SUBJECTS
Subjects should be scheduled to arrive at the sensory facility
at the same time, receive their instructions as a group, pro-
ceed to their assigned booth, and begin their evaluation.
Scheduling avoids conflicts, assures similar instructions and
products are given, provides order, and establishes this as a
serious professional activity. Allowing subjects to arrive at
the facility and begin testing whenever they like introduces
potential error from a variety of sources including product
stability, extending the session too long, and traffic conges-
tion in the test area. Most testing is done in the morning
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
from 9:00 to 11:30 and in the afternoon from 1:30 to 4:00.
Suppliers that use consumers trained for sensory panels may
schedule testing for the evening hours until 9:00 or 9:30 pm.
D. PERSONAL REQUIREMENTS
Subjects should be informed that they are expected to
arrive on time at the test location, and to not have con-
sumed food or flavored beverages, or smoked for approx-
imately ½ hour before testing. They are asked to not use
fragranced personal care products, perfumes, and so forth,
when reporting to the test site, and they are cautioned to
not wear clothing that has retained aromas from previous
contact with these products. Subjects are discouraged from
discussing product tests other than during sessions con-
ducted by the panel leader. In many cases they are required
to sign confidentiality agreements, and in tests involving
experimental ingredients or processes may be asked to
sign release of liability forms.
E. TEST ORIENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS
Subjects reporting to a site are provided with a verbal ori-
entation. The orientation informs subjects about the prod-
uct category, number of products to be evaluated, the
evaluation procedure, and any procedural variations that
differ from previous evaluations. Written instructions are
posted in each test booth, and subjects are encouraged to
read those instructions before evaluating the first product,
and again during rest intervals between products.
F. INCENTIVES AND MOTIVATION
Positively motivated subjects are more likely to follow
test rules, have lower panel absenteeism, remain focused
on the task, and are less likely to be negative and disrup-
tive. Although positive motivation does not guarantee sat-
isfactory performance, it increases that likelihood, and is
beneficial for the other subjects and for the test staff.
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-7
Positive motivation begins with informing subjects that
the task is important, maintaining an efficient and profes-
sional test program, and providing positive reinforcement
where possible, without disclosing information that can
influence upcoming tests. Following testing, a daily treat,
such as a beverage, baked good, confectionery, fruit, veg-
etable and dip immediately reinforce subject participation.
These items need to be thoughtfully presented and fresh.
Once they become routine or are leftovers from previous
tests, they lose their reinforcing value. Where there is insuf-
ficient space for a treats table, or where one would interfere
with testing, a coupon of equal value and redeemable at the
company cafeteria can be substituted. Holidays provide the
opportunity to incorporate a special theme into the daily
treat.
Long term incentives include various forms of recogni-
tion rewarding participation and attendance rather than skill.
A letter of commendation from a senior executive, com-
pany newsletter recognition for the “taster of the month,”
an annual dinner out or panel party, and accumulating points
toward a gift or raffle have proved successful. Incentives that
reward the subject and publicize the sensory program are
always a good idea. Cash payments are usually reserved for
non-employee subjects. Employees should not be compen-
sated for their participation.
G. PERFORMANCE RECORDS
Sensory panels use a small number of subjects; therefore,
the performance of each subject is important. Performance
records track the number and type of panels on which the
subject participates and notes any sub-standard areas of per-
formance. An individual subject’s failure to find differences
where the panel result is statistically significant is noted in
the performance record. The information will help to iden-
tify where additional training is required for the subject or
the panel, or when a subject needs to be excused from a
panel.
IV. APPLICATIONS
The growth and success of sensory evaluation is directly
related to its positive contributions and variety of applica-
tions to product development and product quality. The fol-
lowing section describes many of these useful applications.
A. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Product development is an activity that ranges from new
product development to several planned activities associ-
ated with changes to a product or process.
1. New Product Development
The new product development cycle begins with a prod-
uct idea generated from consumer research or technical
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-8
57-8 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
discovery, and is complete when marketing research
demonstrates sufficient consumer interest in the new prod-
uct. The amount and detail of direction consumer research
will provide about the sensory characteristics for a new
product will differ based on a company’s ability to obtain
that information. Trained panel (e.g., QDA) evaluations in
these consumer studies will provide an accurate description
of product differences and similarities, and when combined
with consumer preferences will identify sensory attributes
and intensities to optimize consumer acceptance. The sen-
sory description for the optimized product becomes the
development target. Trained descriptive panels and quali-
fied discrimination panels are used to determine when one
or more products satisfactorily achieve or approximate a
sensory optimized target.
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
2. Pilot Plant Scale-Up
A pilot plant is often used during product development as
a means for providing test products and quantities sup-
porting research and development without interrupting
manufacturing or requiring production size quantities. At
the conclusion of the R&D development process, the pilot
test product (i.e., formulation and process) will need to
be converted to a production product, using production
equipment and processes. Differences between pilot plant
and production product usually is unwanted; however,
they are not unexpected. The manufacturer needs to deter-
mine that there is a perceived difference between the two
products, and if there is, what are the implications of that
difference. Where possible, sensory discrimination tests
are used to determine whether there is a perceived differ-
ence between the pilot and production products, and where
a difference is found, trained panel descriptive tests are
used to describe those differences. Product Development
will need to determine formulation or process variables
responsible for the difference and make necessary changes.
If the production product is different compared to the pilot
plant product and cannot be modified further, it’s impact
on acceptance will need to be assessed. This is achieved
either through comparison to an optimization model, if
one was developed during the development process, or in a
consumer test of the pilot and production product. Where
production product cannot be modified further and it does
not satisfy the company’s action standard for acceptance
for new product introduction, the new product may be
abandoned.
3. Cost Reduction
Cost reduction is an ongoing activity, and where possible
sensory discrimination tests are used to determine
whether there is a perceived difference between the con-
trol and cost-reduced product. Where no difference is
found, the cost-reduced product is accepted to replace the
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
current product. A difference usually results in rejection
of the cost-reduced product. Where a difference is found,
descriptive tests may describe differences to determine
whether the difference is for an important attribute or one
that may be readily corrected. Caution is advisable rela-
tive to using a series of discrimination tests where a suc-
cessful cost-reduced product replaces the control. For
example, if A is not significantly different compared to B
and B is not significantly different compared to C, and so
forth, A very well may be significantly different when
compared to Z. This transitivity can occur when a series
of non-significant differences result in a product that is
significantly different from the original control. This pos-
sibility can be minimized through the use of descriptive
analysis, comparing the descriptive profile of the proposed
new control to that of reproduced original control or to the
historical profile for the original control.
4. Ingredient/Process Change
Alternate ingredients, new equipment, and process changes
may be introduced at any time. All changes should be
evaluated to determine their potential effect on product per-
ception; the evaluation strategy is the same as described
for cost reduction. In situations where a change is required
by the business, even where sensory differences are
found, consumer tests are recommended to estimate the
impact of the change.
5. Ingredients/Purchase Specifications
Sensory requirements are designed into the purchase spec-
ification for many ingredients. For example, a prescribed
perceived heat level is required for hot peppers that will be
used in processed salsa.
B. PRODUCT QUALITY
The objective is to provide a consistent product of appro-
priate sensory quality, where appropriate sensory quality
is defined during the product development cycle. The fol-
lowing describes important areas where sensory evalua-
tion supports the quality mission.
1. Sensory Specification
A sensory specification describes the acceptable range for
the most important characteristics of a product. Specifica-
tion development requires products selected to represent
the broad range of production product and possible varia-
tion. Products are evaluated by a trained panel and by con-
sumers. The trained panel provides sensory descriptions
(e.g., QDA) for each product, and consumers, qualified as
likers and users of the product, provide the liking scores.
The data are analyzed to identify the most important accept-
ance predictors (usually about 10 to 12) and the tolerance
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-9
Sensory Science: Methodology
range for each, and these results are used to train quality
control panels at manufacturing sites.
2. Production Benchmarking
Once a new product has been accepted for manufacture
and distribution, production samples are evaluated by a
trained descriptive panel to establish the sensory profile
for the product when first released for sale. The bench-
marking documentation is used for future comparisons
and references to the original product.
3. Manufacture Quality
In a manufacturing facility, subjects are screened and trained
to evaluate a product at one or more stages of production
(and where permitted according to GMP and HACCP
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
requirements). These evaluations can include ingredient
receipt and storage, during manufacture, and finished prod-
uct. For finished product, trained sensory panels evaluate
attributes included in the sensory specification. A sensory
professional coordinates the activity but is not a panel
participant. Subjects evaluate attribute intensities, and the
sensory professional uses that information to determine
whether to recommend accept, hold for further evaluation,
or reject the product.
4. Shelf-Life and Stability
The sensory quality of products deteriorates over time, and
the rate of deterioration depends on factors related to ingre-
dients, packaging, handling, and storage. Several different
sensory related criteria are possible for determining when
the end of shelf-life occurs, and no one criterion is univer-
sally accepted. Using a qualified descriptive or discrimi-
nation panel, any statistically significant difference for a
sensory attribute compared to a control product is a popular
choice for determining end of shelf-life, albeit a conserva-
tive one. Where a sensory specification is available, stored
product is evaluated to access whether it deviates from
that specification. A loss of consumer acceptance is another
popular criterion used to determine end of shelf-life.
5. Distribution Product
Products may experience abuse after leaving the manu-
facturing facility; therefore, many companies audit product
quality at the retail level. Results from qualified descrip-
tive and discrimination sensory panels are used to measure
differences compared to data from the product benchmark
or sensory specification.
C. MARKETING
Sensory evaluation supports marketing and marketing
research activities beginning with new product development,
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-9
continuing through tracking product performance, and
contributing to special assignments such as developing tests
and data to support or challenge advertising claims. We
briefly describe the role of sensory evaluation in those activ-
ities.
1. Monitor Competition
Discrimination and descriptive panel information are used
to provide immediate intelligence about the similarity and
differences between competitive products and also for
tracking changes and trends over time.
2. Advertising/Claim Support
Sensory claims often appear on television, radio, and in
mass media print and trade oriented publications. Most
claims are comparative and preference related, others may
identify specific sensory differences. In either case, the
claims can be challenged and damages assessed where the
claim is not substantiated. All phases of the research,
including subject recruitment, selection, training, testing
and the data analysis are subject to examination and chal-
lenge. Therefore, it is important that sensory claims are
supported by appropriate research that can be defended in
the legal system. The research must demonstrate that it is
free of bias that could influence the outcome, and that sound
testing principals are used.
3. Category Review
A broad array of products, often between 12 to 24 and
representing the competitive and sensory range for a cate-
gory, are evaluated by a trained descriptive panel and by
consumers. Reviews for a rapidly changing product cate-
gory may be scheduled as frequently as 6 month or 12
month intervals. The information is used to monitor the
competitive market on a broad scale and to track changes
and trends over time.
4. Product Optimization
This category of sensory research is conducted for the
purpose of optimizing consumer liking for a product. Two
different approaches are used for selecting products for
this research; one is a design of experiments (DOE), and
the other is a category review (CR). The DOE limits prod-
ucts to those the researcher modifies according to a pre-
scribed experimental design (e.g., factorial, RSM); the CR
includes a range of products having sensory differences
representing the product category. A qualified discrimina-
tion panel may be used to eliminate redundant products
and a trained sensory panel to provide a descriptive analy-
sis of the products. The statistical analysis relates the con-
sumer, trained panel, and analytical (if included) data sets
to determine combinations of sensory and analytical
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-10
57-10 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
attributes that best predict optimal consumer liking. The
descriptive panel is used for the follow-up research to eval-
uate test products until one or more satisfy the optimized
sensory target.
V. DISCRIMINATION METHODS
Discrimination tests are classified as analytical methods,
and are used primarily to determine whether there is a per-
ceived difference between products. The tests may be
directional, where the attribute of difference is named, or
non-directional, where the attribute of difference is not
named. Discrimination tests are relatively uncomplicated
to administer (most use a simultaneous sample presenta-
tion), analyze, interpret, and report. They are used in sensory
studies primarily to screen products as a prelude to other
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
types of tests (e.g., descriptive or consumer), or to screen
subjects for participation in descriptive and other sensory
analytical panels. Discrimination tests are used in quality
control and manufacturing to identify non-conforming prod-
uct. They may not be the method of choice where inherent
variability within samples is large.
Discrimination testing dates back to the psycho-
physics of the 1800s and procedures used for absolute and
difference threshold determination. The following section
discusses discrimination tests used by sensory scientists
to make product decisions, without reference to competing
psychophysical theories or models attempting to explain
the discrimination process.
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Following are some requirements for discrimination tests.
We are reminded that these tests are sensory analytical
tests, and as such use small numbers of screened and qual-
ified subjects. By small numbers, we mean 20 to 25; how-
ever, there is no rule that precludes more or fewer subjects.
1. Subject Selection
Subjects for sensory analytical tests are screened for their
sensory skill, and for discrimination tests this means for
their ability to detect differences between products. Using
consumers or other subjects that have not been screened
for sensory acuity is not common practice or is it recom-
mended. Unskilled subjects increase the risk of a Type II
error (i.e., missing a real difference); large numbers of sub-
jects, typical for consumer tests, increases the risk of a Type
I error (i.e., finding a false difference). A previous section
provides a detailed discussion about subject screening.
2. Test Design, N, and Replication
Balanced design serving orders are typical for discrimina-
tion tests within and between product trials, except for those
three sample tests where it is prudent to reinforce the sensory
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
characteristics of a control product that is a benchmark. For
each trial in this fixed order scenario, two of the three prod-
ucts are the control and the third is the test product.
Sensory analytical tests typically use small numbers of
subjects screened for their sensory skills, and the discrimi-
nation model is no exception. About 12 screened and qual-
ified subjects are optimal, and together with a recommended
replicate trial provide sufficient data for statistical analysis.
Replication is recommended for analytical sensory tests,
because each subject contributes a large percent of the data
and it is important to know which subjects have difficulty
replicating their response. An inability of a subject or a panel
to replicate responses can provide important information
about problems with the subjects, procedure, and products.
3. Data Analysis
Unless noted otherwise below, statistical testing for dis-
crimination data is typically based on expansion of the
Binomial distribution. Published tables are available in
the literature for determining the number of correct judg-
ments required for statistical significance (2, 15). These
tables provide for 1-tail and 2-tail tests and for chance
probability values of 0.5 and 0.33.
B. NON-DIRECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION TESTS
The following tests are classified as non-directional
because subjects are not instructed to select the different
product based on any specified attribute.
1. A-Not-A Sequential Presentation
Subjects are provided with two 3-digit coded products,
one followed by the other, and indicate whether the sec-
ond product is the same, or different from the first. The
first product is removed prior to serving the second to
eliminate a direct comparison of the two. This method is
used primarily to minimize observation of unimportant
visual differences between products, and to control expo-
sure time between products having significant carryover
effects. The probability of a correct judgement is 0.50;
data analysis is straightforward and based on the binomial
expansion, for which there are several published tables.
The A not-A method can be expanded to where two or
more coded products are given to the subject, one at a
time, without reintroduction of the first product. Although
this further reduces carryover effects, selection of this
serving option must be balanced against unwanted differ-
ences in subject’s memory skills.
2. A-Not-A Simultaneous Presentation
Subjects are provided with 2 products, side by side, and
indicate whether the products are the same or different.
They are instructed to try the product on the left first, and
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-11
Sensory Science: Methodology
then the product on the right. This design should include
an equal number of pairs in which the products are in fact
the same, to reduce the impact of false hits from subjects
that always respond that there is a difference.
3. Duo-Trio
Three products are presented simultaneously to the subject,
where one is coded “R,” for reference, and the other two
products have unique 3-digit codes. The subject is instructed
to select which coded product is most similar to the refer-
ence. Similar to the A-not-A method, it does not require
selection based on a named attribute or training with that
attribute, has a p ⫽ 0.50, and one can use published tables
for the binomial expansion. As we will see, this method
requires less re-tasting and consequent potential for carry-
over effects than does the Triangle method. A sequential
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
procedure can be used to further reduce direct compar-
isons and carryover effects; however, it introduces unwanted
memory skill issues.
4. Triangle
Three 3-digit coded products are presented simultane-
ously, and the subject is informed that two of the products
are the same and one is different. The subject’s task is to
correctly select the product most different from the other
two. The triangle method requires more tasting to reach a
decision than does the duo-trio method. This is because
the triangle has 3 pairs of unknown products (A vs. B, A vs.
C, and B vs. C) compared to two pairs (Reference vs. A,
and Reference vs. B) for the duo-trio. The chance probabil-
ity for the triangle test is 0.33 to reflect that there are three
unknowns, and there are published tables available for
assessing significance between products.
5. Matching and Sorting Tests
A variety of non-directional discrimination tests are pos-
sible for matching unknowns to two or more controls or
standards (e.g., dual-standard method), sorting unknowns
into similarity groups, or indicating degree of “sureness”
that an unknown matches a previous sample. An example
of the latter is the R-index described by O’Mahony (17).
These methods require more tasting than do the methods
described above, and for this reason are not routinely used
for product evaluation.
C. DIRECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION TESTS
For directional difference tests, subjects are instructed to
make their choice based on a specified attribute.
1. Paired Difference
Subjects are provided with 2 products, side by side, and
indicate which product has more of a specified attribute.
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-11
They are instructed to try the product on the left first, and
then the product on the right. The order of tasting is bal-
anced across subjects and replications.
The primary criticisms of this method, and of all direc-
tional discrimination tests, is the time and effort required
to train subjects to evaluate the specific attribute, and know-
ing whether subjects actually selected a product based on
the specified criteria. Commercial products are often quite
complex, where an ingredient or process difference can
result in several sensory differences. Limiting the subject’s
response to a single attribute may result in a correct choice
based on incorrect criteria. For example, different sweet-
ener types and amounts for a beverage or baked product
may alter visual and textural characteristics. Products scored
different for sweetness actually may differ on some other
attribute. Several investigators (1,18,19,20) have convinc-
ingly argued that, all things being equal, a directional
method is superior to an equivalent non-directional method.
The problem is, seldom are all things equal. Where attrib-
ute information is required, sensory descriptive methods
are recommended.
2. n-Alternative Forced-Choice
The directional paired difference test can be expanded to
include several samples, and the subject instructed to select
the product that has the most, or least, of some attribute.
As in all discrimination tests, the probability value must
reflect the number of samples from which the subject must
select. For example, the probability value is 0.33 for a
3-product test, 0.20 for a 5-product test, and so forth. AFC
tests are directional and have the same procedural problems
described for the paired difference test. They are multi-
sample tests where all the samples for a trial are simulta-
neously presented, introducing issues of sensory fatigue
for many commercial products.
AFC methods are have been popularized most recently
by researchers developing theoretical models to explain
sensory discrimination behavior (19,20). Signal Detection,
Thurstonian, and other competing approaches may well pro-
vide answers to important sensory discrimination issues,
and their examination is encouraged. To be useful for rou-
tine product evaluation, these approaches will need to
offer alternate procedures that are practical in a business
environment.
VI. DESCRIPTIVE METHODS
Descriptive analysis is the most sophisticated source of
information available about the perceived sensory proper-
ties of products. It is particularly important because it pro-
vides a focus for development efforts. Descriptive analysis
provides a basis for measuring the effects on perception
of a process or of ingredients; it is used for correlating
instrumental measures, and it is essential for correlating
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-12
57-12 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
consumer response behavior and for identifying those
product attributes that are most important to consumer
preferences. Before discussing specific methods, it is nec-
essary to define what is meant here by descriptive analy-
sis. Descriptive analysis is a sensory methodology that
provides quantitative descriptions of products based on
the perceptions from a group of qualified subjects. Based
on the method, it provides information about a specific
sensory modality or provides a total sensory description,
taking into account all the sensations that are perceived,
visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory, and kinesthetic —
when the product is evaluated. The evaluation is usually
(but not always) done in a controlled environment, and
can include product handling, and, in this sense, it is a total
experience. The evaluation also can be done in a home
environment when normal preparation, use, and consump-
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
tion are required over a period of time.
The origins of descriptive information can be traced to
early brewmasters, perfumers, flavorists, and other product
specialists. These technical specialists described products,
made recommendations about the purchase of specific raw
materials, and also evaluated the effect of process variables
on product quality (as they determined product quality).
Companies used that information to determine that a par-
ticular product met their criteria for manufacture and sale to
the consumer. These early activities were the basis for the
foundation of sensory evaluation as a science, although at
the time it was not considered within that context. Formal
descriptive analysis received its major impetus from “flavor
profile,” an approach that demonstrated it was possible to
select and train individuals to describe the sensory proper-
ties of a product in some agreed sequence, leading to action-
able results, without requiring years as an apprentice to an
expert. The method attracted considerable interest and was a
milestone in the development of the science of sensory
evaluation. It also was the source of much controversy, and
since then other descriptive methods have been developed.
A. FLAVOR PROFILE
The Flavor Profile® method described by Cairncross and
Sjöstrom (21), Sjöstrom and Cairncross (22), and Caul
(23) was developed at the Arthur D. Little Co. and is the
only existing formal qualitative descriptive procedure.
The method utilizes a panel of four to six screened and
selected subjects who examine, discuss, and evaluate prod-
uct in an open session. Product attributes are scored for
intensity in the order of their perception. The intensity
scale was: 0 ⫽ none,) (⫽ threshold,) (⫺1, 1 ⫽ slight,
1–2, 2 ⫽ moderate, 2–3, and 3 ⫽ strong. Once agreement
is reached on the description of the product, the panel
leader summarizes and reports the results without appli-
cation of any statistical analysis.
Six subjects are selected for training based on technical
background and a series of screening tests, including basic
taste recognition and intensity ranking, odor identification
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
for selected chemical compounds, and a personal inter-
view to evaluate interest, attitude and availability. Training
takes 6 months or more and includes instructional infor-
mation about the senses, introduction to the components
of the flavor profile, and direct experience evaluating
selected products. Training also includes threshold deter-
mination for the basic tastes, skills having little or no con-
nection with evaluation of products containing mixtures
of supra-threshold stimuli. Selected references are intro-
duced to demonstrate specific sensations, and practice
profiles obtained for products evaluated by an experi-
enced panel. During training all subjects serve as panel
leader until one is selected. The panel leader is key to this
method; they coordinate the testing and report results. This
individual assumes a leadership role, directing the conver-
sation and providing a consensus conclusion based on the
results. The role of panel leader as defined in the method
can have significant consequences without some inde-
pendent controls. Subjects could be led to a conclusion
without being aware this had occurred.
The method had considerable appeal because results
could be obtained rapidly. Subjects meet, as a group, for
about an hour to evaluate a product, reach a consensus about
its sensory properties, and provide the requestor with a
result. The developers of the method emphasized that there
would be confidence based on the collective professional
judgment of the panel and this would obviate the need for
statistics. The method is unique in that no direct judgement
was made concerning consumer acceptance of the product,
although most investigators assumed consumer acceptance
based on a result. An early recognized shortcoming of the
method was its focus on the single sensory modality of fla-
vor. Subsequent methods would extend screening, training,
and evaluation to one or more additional modalities.
B. TEXTURE PROFILE
Chronologically the next descriptive method of impor-
tance was the Texture Profile® method developed at the
General Foods Research Center (24, 25, 26). The method
was based on Flavor Profile, and extended descriptive analy-
sis into a second modality, texture. Brandt and co-workers
(24) defined a texture profile as “the sensory analysis of
the texture complex of a food in terms of its mechanical,
geometrical, fat and moisture characteristics, the degree of
each present and the order in which they appear from first
bite through complete mastication.” Several of the proce-
dures introduced by Texture Profile raise behavioral issues
related to panel training.
If the panel is to be used also for flavor assessment, sub-
ject screening includes tasks identical to those described for
Flavor Profile. Texture screening tests were devised for hard-
ness and viscosity ranking, and for geometric matching. As
many as 40 to 50 subjects may be screened, with 10 to 15
selected for training. Full or partial denture wearers were
not considered for panel membership.
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-13
Sensory Science: Methodology
Texture training included a two week orientation phase,
a three month practice phase, and a three month expansion
phase. A standard set of references was used to demon-
strate taste, aroma and mouthfeel sensations. The concept
of the components of flavor profile was extended to include
what were described as mechanical, geometrical, and a cat-
egory of “other” (moisture and fat) characteristics, inten-
sity, and the order of appearance for the texture properties.
An effort was made to describe the physical properties of
texture and to provide a sensory definition for each des-
cribed physical property.
Initially, the texture terms and definitions were com-
piled, sorted, and categorized from both scientific/technical
and popular terms, the latter from laboratory or field situ-
ations in which common usage terms were used to describe
textural sensations. This led to the development of a clas-
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
sification of terms that were believed to encompass texture
sensations. Standardized rating scales were introduced for
the mechanical and geometrical properties of texture per-
ception, and these relied on commercially available products
to anchor each point of each scale. During training, subjects
were expected to learn these definitions and their associa-
tions. The product evaluation procedure used a Flavor
Profile approach with panelists discussing results in order
to reach a conclusion.
Although the method was useful for focusing attention
beyond flavor and on the relative importance of texture,
it had numerous problems of its own. In developing the
method, one objective was to eliminate subject variability
through use of a standard vocabulary, and standard rating
scales and references as part of the training program. There
are inherent risks in experimenter-assigned attributes. While
they may be meaningful to a chemist, one might question
the perceptual meaning of these technical definitions to a
subject. Other subjects could ignore a perception because
the characteristic was not among those selected for training.
Use of products as scale anchors presents their own set of
problems. Products are not invariant; they change over time
as a function of marketing and other considerations. Another
concern is the separation of texture from other sensory prop-
erties of a product such as color, aroma, taste, and so forth.
As a rule, perceptions are interdependent, and the exclusion
of a sensory modality from a scorecard does not eliminate
those perceptions. In effect, the subject is likely to use other
attributes to acknowledge these perceptions, and the visible
manifestation is increased variability and decreased sensi-
tivity. These other perceptions can influence the responses to
the textural perceptions and vice versa.
Profile methods and related “expert” systems treat
subject differences as unwanted error, and these training
programs resort to behavior modification procedures in an
attempt to eliminate this source of variance. The panel
leader trains subjects to provide what the leader judges to
be the correct response to stimuli, and subjects are trained
to agree and repeat those responses in the presence of the
stimulus. The approach ignores the reality of the situation,
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-13
and eliminates the opportunity to assess the importance of
individual differences for understanding and generalizing
results to consumers.
Interest in eliminating subject variability is, on the sur-
face, a reasonable (although not likely or practical) idea
but it must not give way to procedures that sacrifice the
validity of the measurement system. The human is a living
and changing organism, influenced by physiological and
psychological conditions that better support a concept of
expected variability. Products also are themselves variable.
For these reasons, a panel is used rather than a single sub-
ject, and replication has become a mainstay in most cur-
rent descriptive methods.
C. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (QDA)
Development of the Flavor and Texture Profile methods
demonstrated a need for descriptive information and a for-
malized procedure for screening and training subjects, and
for evaluating products. They also stimulated interest and
research on alternative descriptive methods that would cor-
rect weaknesses previously identified: the extended amount
of time to select and train a panel, reliance on model systems
(e.g., compounds in water) for screening subjects, an exper-
imenter-derived descriptive language, the types of scales
used, qualitative rather than quantitative information, the
role of the panel leader, and the type and role of references.
The Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) method, first
described by Stone, Sidel, Oliver, Woolsey, and Singleton
(27) and taught by the Tragon Corporation, addressed
behavioral, measurement, and quantitative weaknesses of
the profile methods, reflecting scientific and technical devel-
opments in psychology and the consumer products industry.
The QDA method differs from the profile methods on
criteria of subjects recruited, screening procedure and
materials, subject training, testing, analysis, and reporting
for descriptive information.
1. Subjects
Consumer users in the product category are recruited, and
test results are then generalized to the consumer popula-
tion. Experts and others having technical degrees in the
product area are avoided as subjects because of the poten-
tial for biased responses based on their technical knowl-
edge of the product category, ingredients, and processes.
About 25 subjects are recruited, and it is expected that 12 to
15 will successfully qualify and complete training.
2. Screening
Discrimination tests are used, and screening stimuli are
selected from the product category rather than the simple
stimuli in water solutions popular with the profile methods.
The closer the screening stimuli are to the test stimuli, the
more likely that successful performance will be obtained
in the actual test. About 10 to 15 replicated pairs of product
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-14
57-14 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
stimuli are used, increasing in difficulty from the first pair
(easy to discriminate) to the last pair (difficult to discrim-
inate), covering all sensory modalities, and including any
differences known to be relevant to consumers. Correct
selection of the different product in more than about 65%
of the trials, and consistency in correct selection across
replications are used as a guide for subject selection.
3. Training
QDA training focuses on language development and the
evaluation process, and provides subjects experience with
the range of products they will evaluate. Language devel-
opment is a consensus building process. The panel leader’s
function is to keep the panel focused on developing objec-
tive terms (in contrast to attitudinal terms) that can be
measured and obtain agreement amongst subjects on the
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
evaluation procedure. A typical QDA scoresheet includes
30 to 50 or more attributes covering all sensory modalities.
The language development process contrasts with the pro-
file methods, which teach a preconceived technical language
and use a prescribed set of “universal references” derived
from the experimenter. QDA uses references selected
directly from the product category, and only on an as-needed
basis. Consequently, QDA derived attributes and consumer
perceptions take less time to obtain, with the entire train-
ing process requiring between 5 to 10 hours, rather than
several months.
4. Testing
Subjects evaluate each product individually in a facility
equipped with test booths or partitions, or, for an extended
use QDA, in their own homes following product usage.
Subjects typically evaluate 4 to 6 products, and as many
as 24 or more when part of product optimization research.
Balanced block serving designs are used and each subject
provides 2 to 4 replicate evaluations. Subjects use a semi-
structured line scale to score the perceived intensity for each
attribute for a product. The scale consists of a 6-inch
(⬃15 cm) line, anchored ½ inch (⬃1.5 cm) from each end
to identify the direction (e.g., weak to strong) for each
attribute. This type of scale has no numbers and mini-
mizes word bias. It is very difficult for a subject to mem-
orize the location of previous judgements (assuring
greater independence of judgements from replication to
replication and product to product), and preserves the
interval character of the scale for data analysis.
5. Data Analysis
QDA was the first trained panel method to insist on, and
provide for, statistical analysis of subject performance and
product differences. Line scale responses are converted to
numerical values from 0 to 60 prior to analysis. A unique
method of graphing the data, QDA “spider graphs,” was
developed that readily communicated product similarities
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
and differences, and has become a standard in the food
industry. A proprietary statistical package was made avail-
able for analyzing QDA data, and included in Tragon’s
training program for panel leaders. The statistical package
uses one-way and two-way Analysis of Variance models
in prescribed ways to assess subject performance. Current
innovations to the package include algorithms for assess-
ing crossover and magnitude interaction, scale use, and
multivariate analysis and mapping techniques. QDA data
is well suited to the recent advances in statistical analysis
and computer technology.
D. SENSORY SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
This method positions itself as a hybrid of the three methods
described previously; however, it is primarily an extension
of the profile methods. Concepts first introduced for the
Texture Profile method are extended back to the recruiting,
screening, training, and testing for flavor panels as well.
Separate training programs are required for flavor, texture,
and each other modality. Training programs are quite
lengthy, a common element for all profile methods. Subjects
are taught about sensory processes, similar to the orienta-
tion programs found in the other profile methods. They
also are taught experimenter-assigned attribute vocabu-
lary and rating scales, the latter anchored at multiple points
with experimenter-assigned references. Subjects must learn
the required response to selected stimuli, independent of
their individual perceptions, as an attempt to produce
absolute scales. Teaching identical responses, independent
of individual perception, is possible; however, skeptics of the
method view this as a form of behavior modification and
contrary to understanding and predicting consumer per-
ception. QDA concepts included in the Spectrum method
include category-specific discrimination tests for subject
screening, intensity scales (although more nominal or ordinal
than interval here because of the training method), exposure
to a broad range of product in the category, evaluation in
individual test booths, and application of statistical analy-
sis. The statistics are generic and less specific than those
found in QDA and other recent developments in descrip-
tive methods. Curiously, variance data from panels trained
in the Spectrum method has not adequately demonstrated
the zero result necessary to support a claim of absolute
scales or counter the concept of individual differences.
E. FREE-CHOICE PROFILING
Williams and Langron (28) described a radically different
descriptive method that required no subject screening and
training, where each subject could use their own words
and scales to describe products. Generalized Procrustes
analysis, an iterative type of factor analysis, is used to
force fit individual data into a common space. While this
type of summary analysis can show differences between
very different products, it misses smaller, and possibly
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-15
Sensory Science: Methodology
important, differences. The method does not demonstrate
any substantially unique advantages and may be better
suited to classification and comparison to other consumer
procedures than to trained panel procedures.
F. OTHER METHODS
Descriptive information is recognized as important, if not
crucial, as a means for providing a comprehensive product
assessment. Descriptive panels are used in several venues
including, and not limited to, product development, qual-
ity control, advertising claim support, and food science
education. Different needs have given rise to descriptive
panel variations other than the methods described above.
Many descriptive methods are generic and retain in varying
degree elements of the core methods; a few other methods
have established, or attempted to establish, themselves as
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
different. Larson-Powers and Pangborn (29) introduced the
use of a reference combined with a difference from refer-
ence scale. The method required simultaneously available
stimuli, reducing the number of different products that
could be evaluated in a session. The developers of the Flavor
Profile introduced a new version called Profile Attribute
Analysis (30) that included 7-point intensity scales allowing
for statistical treatment of the responses. Stampanoni (31)
introduced “Quantitative Flavor Profiling” as a hybrid
method based on Flavor Profile and QDA.
VII. TIME-INTENSITY SCALING
The temporal aspects of the sensory experience during food
and beverage consumption are apparent to even the casual
observer. Not unexpectedly, perceptual changes occur as
the physical properties of a food change during chewing, or
while in the mouth (e.g., ice cream and butter). Perceptual
change also can occur when the chemical properties of a
stimulus remain constant, as with taste, odor, and certain
mouth sensations (e.g., burning sensation from chemical hot
stimuli). Early psychophysical research into taste adapta-
tion included time as a variable, measuring changes in taste
threshold over time for simple adapting solutions. Hahn’s
(32) results demonstrated threshold differences based on the
concentration of the adapting solution and for the basic
tastes measured (salt, sugar, bitter, and acid). The research
also concluded that subjects complete recovery to the adapt-
ing solutions was not reached within the 30 seconds allowed,
and that there were individual differences. Individual dif-
ferences in time-intensity research continue to be reported;
for example, van Buuren (33), using principal components
to analyze time-intensity (TI) curves, concluded “TI curves
appear to be determined by characteristics that are related to
the judge and that may be unrelated to the product.” Given
that most time-intensity studies involve small numbers of
subjects and data are averaged, individual differences are
a vexing concern for generalizing time-intensity results to a
larger consumer population.
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-15
Time-intensity studies have been reported for the taste,
aroma, and texture of foods, and for a variety of products
including bread, chewing gum, beer, wine, ice cream, chili
pepper, gelatin, and chocolate. Commercial interest in syn-
thetic sweeteners in the 1970s prompted significant pub-
lished and unpublished research into the temporal effects
of these sweeteners compared to sucrose.
A. MEASUREMENT
Interest in time and intensity relationships in sensory eval-
uation is evident by the almost universal practice of meas-
uring aftertaste or aftereffect in descriptive analysis and
consumer research. Subjects in time-intensity studies typi-
cally receive instruction and practice with the test procedure,
scale, and any special apparatus used for data collection,
and may be screened for their ability to detect differences
for the attribute or attributes measured. Under these condi-
tions, the subjects are viewed as a special type of descriptive
analysis panel.
The simplest measurement practice involves scoring
the perceived intensity for overall aftertaste or aftereffect
(i.e., sensation remaining in the mouth), or for a specified
attribute, as a last task during routine product evaluation by
an ongoing descriptive panel. The panel is instructed to first
wait a prescribed amount of time (30 to 60 seconds or more
depending on the product) after completing other attribute
evaluations. This procedure can be expanded to include
intensity measures for several specific attributes obtained
at one or more designated points in time during the evalu-
ation. This approach is appealing because it uses an ongo-
ing panel, can measure several attributes at selected points in
time, and special data collection equipment is not required.
There is a practical limit to the number of attributes that
can be measured during a time interval, as it takes time to
score attributes. This and related issues should be resolved
during training. The primary disadvantage of this approach
it that measurement occurs at discrete points in time,
whereas, the perceived change may be continuous. Whether
the perceived change is different for different subjects is
more a data analysis issue than one of data collection.
Continuous measurement of the change in perceived
intensity requires an apparatus that simultaneously tracks
time and the subject’s intensity scores. While providing the
advantage of continuous measurement, the apparatus usu-
ally limits the number of attributes that can be measured
to one or two, and based on the apparatus requires varying
degrees of physical involvement by the subject. Pen type
strip-chart recorders were among the earliest devices used
for continuous measurement in time-intensity studies (34).
The recorder moves chart paper at a constant rate and an
intensity scale is fixed on the recorder perpendicular to the
direction of chart flow. The subject continuously records
perceived intensity for the selected attribute by keeping
the pen in contact with the chart paper, moving the pen in
the direction of increasing or decreasing intensity until the
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-16
57-16 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
perceived intensity for the attribute has returned to base-
line. Data from early generation strip chart recorders was
handled much like that from similar tests using paper bal-
lots. The subject’s intensity score at several points in time
were hand measured and converted to numerical value for
data analysis. This was a labor-intensive process, depend-
ing on the number of time points examined.
Desktop computers linked to a joystick (35), or simi-
lar device, for measuring perceived intensity introduced
significant improvements in the time required to collect,
enter, and analyze data, and simplified the subject’s task
compared to strip chart recorders. These advances and
developments in statistical analysis and graphing software
that could be used with time-intensity data encouraged
greater use of the method for sensory research.
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
B. ANALYSIS
Time-intensity studies typically involve one or two attrib-
utes, and the results are readily graphed on x-y coordinates,
with attribute intensity on the y-axis and time on the x-axis.
Curves may represent individual data, averaged data for
the panel, or group data for subjects having similar results.
Measures of central tendency, such as means or medians,
are used to construct data points for selected time periods, or
data may be otherwise transformed to reduce or eliminate
subject differences. Data points are then connected to cre-
ate a time-intensity (TI) curve. Selected curve parameters
or discrete points are compared directly or analyzed for
statistical significance. Maximum intensity (Imax), time to
maximum intensity (Tmax), and duration (return time to
baseline intensity) are popular discrete points used for
comparing TI results for different products, and suitable
analysis of variance and multiple range tests are then per-
formed to determine significance for the observed differ-
ences. An examination of the literature on this topic reveals
views espousing and challenging a variety of curve param-
eters worthy of consideration, such as area under the curve,
peaks, plateaus, slopes, and so forth. Several investigators
have proposed combinations of these and other measures,
and developments are still forthcoming in this area. The
interested reader is directed to Lawless and Heymann (1) for
additional detail about TI research in sensory evaluation
and the different analysis methods proposed for the data.
One of the biggest challenges facing the experimenter
is how to deal with a subject’s error of anticipation; i.e.,
providing responses based on the subject’s guessing the
purpose of the test.
VIII. DATA ANALYSIS
Statistics is an essential part of the sensory evaluation
process, providing a means of summarizing information to
reach conclusions about subject performance and product
difference. For sensory evaluation there are several issues
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
that make the use of statistics especially challenging. First,
there are many different statistical procedures from which to
choose, and new tests are regularly introduced and described
in the literature. Second, statisticians as well as sensory sci-
entists differ in their view about how responses should be
treated, which type of analysis is more or less appropriate
and useful, the extent of any data transformation, and so
forth. Third, software packages and the power of the PC
make all methods for analysis easily obtainable in terms
of time and cost, but that does not make them appropriate.
This section provides an introduction to the use of sta-
tistics as a guideline for making sensory and business deci-
sions about products of interest. The focus is on statistical
applications rather than statistical theory and the proofs,
or various algorithms that would take far more than the
space allocated here for this topic. The interested reader
can find that information and worked examples in books
covering the general topic of sensory evaluation and other
books that focus on statistics for sensory evaluation (17,
36, 37). Sensory decisions based solely on the statistical
conclusions are the exception, not the rule. The statistics
that we describe will focus primarily on those analyses
found to be useful for the behavioral sciences; e.g., vari-
ance measures, and will focus less on statistics more typ-
ically used in the engineering and physical sciences.
A. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Sensory responses may take the form of discrete or scaled
data. An example of discrete data is found in discrimination
results where subjects select a product as similar or differ-
ent compared to one or more other products. An example
of scaled data is found where subjects score individual sen-
sory attributes. In this case scoring may be a ranking, or
rating on one form or another of an interval or ratio scale.
Descriptive data provides a summary of the individual
scores, and as such, is more manageable than the original
raw data. However, summary statistics by their very nature
can also mask or distort information and the sensory scien-
tist must be aware of this potential problem. Descriptive sta-
tistics are grouped into measures for central tendency and
dispersion, and are often displayed in tables and graphs.
1. Central Tendency
The mean, mode, and median are important measures for
summarizing individual data.
a. Mean
The arithmetic mean for scaled data is the sum of all scores
divided by the number of scores that have been summed.
The arithmetic mean is the most widely used measure in
sensory evaluation. It can be distorted by extreme scores,
in which case other means such as the harmonic mean or
geometric mean may be better choice. Rank means are pos-
sible when rank order scales are used.
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-17
Sensory Science: Methodology
b. Mode
The mode is the response category that contains the largest
number of responses. This measure is not influenced by
extreme scores as is the arithmetic mean.
c. Median
The median is the category containing the 50th percentile,
dividing an ordered distribution in half. This measure is
also not influenced by extreme scores.
2. Dispersion
The range, variance and standard deviation are the three
most frequently used dispersion statistics reported in sen-
sory tests.
a. Range
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
The range refers to absolute difference between the lowest
and highest scores of an ordered distribution. The range is
easily influenced by one or more extreme scores, and by
itself has limited value. It is more informative when com-
bined with measures of central tendency, variance, and a
frequency distribution.
b. Variance
The variance provides a measure of deviation or dispersion
from a mean. To calculate the variance for a data set
requires that each score is subtracted from the mean, each
difference from that operation squared (to eliminate nega-
tive numbers), these squared differences summed, and then
divided by the number of scores minus 1. The calculated
variance resulting from this process is displayed as S 2 to
represent sample data rather than population data.
c. Standard deviation
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance
and displayed as S to represent sample data. As may be
expected, the standard deviation will always be a smaller
value than the variance, further reducing the impact of
extreme scores.
3. Frequency Distributions
Frequency is the number or percent response for each
response category. Frequency data are typically displayed
as tables or graphs, which provide useful information about
how well other measures, such as the mean and range, rep-
resent the data. For example, a flat distribution would indi-
cate that the mean value is not a good summary description
for the data. Sensory specialists routinely examine fre-
quency distributions for each product and serving order
combination, and different groups of subjects to identify
important trends in the data. Products having similar
shape distributions may readily be included in a variety of
statistical significance tests, whereas those with very dif-
ferent shape distributions may not.
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
57-17
B. INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
This category of statistics is used by the sensory
researcher to determine the risk associated with declaring
that an observed difference in a test represents a real dif-
ference that can be generalized to other test populations, or
to a larger consumer population. Using appropriate statistics
does not eliminate the risk of making a wrong decision;
nonetheless such errors can be minimized through proper
experimentation and analysis. There is not sufficient space
in this chapter to include discussion about probabilities
and hypothesis testing; therefore, the interested reader is
directed to the aforementioned publications (17, 33, 34).
We will limit our discussion to those inference statistics
used most frequently by sensory practitioners.
1. Non-Parametric
This category of statistical tests is used when data from
groups or products to be compared are in the form of counts
(i.e., frequencies), percents, or ranks. These are distribu-
tion free statistics, with no constraint regarding the shape
(e.g., symmetrical bell shape Gaussian curve referred to as
the normal curve) of the distribution. The number of non-
parametric tests is too large to discuss here, and the inter-
ested reader will find greater discussion and useful
references in the sensory statistics literature cited above.
We mention only a few of these tests below.
a. Binomial tests
Data from forced choice tests such as those described for
most discrimination tests can be analyzed for statistical
significance using tables based on the binomial expan-
sion. This has been described previously in this chapter.
b. Chi-square (χ2)
This is a useful statistic for determining whether the
observed number of responses is significantly different
from an expected number (derived from the total number
of responses). There are several variations of the formula
that can be used based on how the data are collected and
the number of classifications being compared. In sensory
evaluation the chi-square test is often used to determine
whether two response distributions are significantly dif-
ferent, and as a preliminary test for isolating and compar-
ing two response categories from among several. It is used
more in sensory consumer tests and less so in sensory dis-
crimination and descriptive tests.
c. Other non-parametric tests
The aforementioned texts include useful descriptions for
several other non-parametric tests worthy of note for sen-
sory analytical tests. Those statistical tests include, and
are not limited to; the McNemar test, Cochran Q test,
Wilcoxon test, Mann-Whitney U test, Friedman test, and
the Kruskal-Wallis test.
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-18
57-18 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
2. Parametric
This category of statistical tests is reserved for data that
satisfies the constraints of the normal curve, which includes
equality of the scaled intervals. All things being equal,
which they seldom are, parametric tests are viewed as more
powerful than non-parametric tests. When response data
are clearly nominal (e.g., counting and classification data) or
ordinal (e.g., ranks), non-parametric tests are recommended.
Parametric tests are appropriate when data are clearly inter-
val or ratio. Having said this, the reader is cautioned that
most of the scales used in sensory evaluation have sufficient
interval characteristics to permit judicial use of paramet-
ric statistics. Underlying statistical assumptions and theory
is just that, assumptions and theory. In practice, results may
be reliable, valid, and useful even if they do not perfectly
satisfy underlying assumptions. In this event, it may be more
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
beneficial to modify the theory and assumptions, rather than
forgo the application.
a. t-test
The t-test is used to determine whether the means for two
products are significantly different. Different formulae are
available to accommodate various conditions such as: inde-
pendent and dependent observations, large and small N,
proportions, and equal and unequal number of observations.
The t-test is not the best choice for sensory tests where the
same subjects evaluate both products, the analysis-
of-variance can be substituted and it extracts more from the
error variance. The t-test also is inappropriate where more
than two products are to be evaluated and statistically com-
pared to one another. This constitutes multiple t-tests of the
same data, a common error.
b. Analysis of variance (AOV)
The analysis of variance is the primary statistical test used
for scaled sensory data. It is a versatile statistical procedure
that readily accommodates multiple products, treatment
conditions and groups of subjects. It is used to determine
whether an effect is statistically significant, and when a
difference noted is followed by a multiple range test to
determine which means are different. Several AOV models
are extensively used in sensory evaluation; these include the
one-way for independent means, the two-way for depend-
ent means, treatment x levels for different treatment con-
ditions (e.g., x-levels of different variables), and split-plot
models for different subject groups evaluating the same
and different treatments.
The primary challenges for selecting the best AOV
model are to select one that is appropriate for the specific
test conditions, to accurately account for all the sources of
variance in the test, and to select the appropriate error term
for testing the significance of an effect. Statistical signifi-
cance in the AOV is based on a calculated F ratio consisting
of an effect variance in the numerator and an error variance
in the denominator. Probability tables for the significance
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
of the calculated F are published in most statistics books;
most statistical packages for sensory and behavioral data
include the AOV analysis and exact probabilities for the
calculated F.
c. Multiple range tests
Multiple range tests are used following an AOV to deter-
mine from among a set of means for a significant variable
which ones are significantly different. Different range tests
reflect what is to be compared and the respective authors’
preference for controlling the various error rates possible
when making multiple comparisons for a single data set.
Too conservative a test will make it difficult to find statisti-
cal significance and result in more Type II errors, whereas
a less conservative test may result in false differences (i.e.,
Type I error). The sensory scientist is cautioned here that the
underlying theoretical assumptions for a multiple range
test may not agree with practical experience using that test.
Where this is the case, paying attention to the risk one can
still proceed cautiously. Frequently used multiple range
tests include; Fisher’s LSD (least significance difference),
Dunnett’s test, Duncan’s test, some tests by Tukey, the
S-N-K (Student-Newman-Keuls) test, the Scheffé test, and
the Bonferroni test. Whichever test is selected, the results
must be examined to determine whether they agree with the
knowledge and expectation the researcher has about the
products and the sensory test.
C. CORRELATION AND REGRESSION
Sensory scientists are often interested in the relationships
between different sets of data. The interest may be bet-
ween different groups of subjects, products, attributes, or
combinations thereof. Because correlation does not imply
causation, summary statistics and graphs depicting asso-
ciation are useful for data reduction, substitution, predic-
tion, and generally improving understanding about
variables. As with inference testing, different statistics are
used for different levels of measurement (e.g., nominal,
rank order, or continuous).
These measures are used to examine and better under-
stand sensory and instrumental relationships, and in opti-
mization research where sensory attributes are used as
predictor variables for consumer acceptance.
1. Correlation
To understand a simple two-variable correlation it is best
to first graph results as a scatter plot with the data from
one variable on the X-axis and data from the second variable
on the Y-axis. For example, descriptive scores for sweet-
ness and bitterness for a set of products can be graphed
and a correlation for the relationship between the two attrib-
utes calculated. The Pearson product moment correlation
coefficient is used for continuous scaled data and is depicted
by r. Calculated r-values range from ⫺1 to 0 to ⫹1. The
 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-19

Sensory Science: Methodology 57-19

closer to 0, the less is the association between the two vari- 2. Discriminate Analysis
ables. The minus sign depicts an opposite relationship,
Discriminate analysis is a methodology for finding linear
whereas a plus sign depicts a directionally similar rela-
combinations of the independent variables that can act as
tionship; unity represents a perfect correlation. Pearson’s is
scoring functions to estimate to which of several classifi-
useful only for linear data, curvilinear data can produce low
cation categories an observation belongs. Sensory scientists
values approaching 0, misleading the casual observer to
use this and related procedures (e.g., canonical correlation)
conclude the variables are unrelated. Correlation can be
in optimization research to identify lifestyle, attitude, and
determined for non-continuous scaled data as well; an
classification information that best identify membership
example is Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient
in different consumer preference groups.
(ρ Greek lowercase rho).
3. Principle Components Analysis
2. Multiple Correlation (R)
This data reduction technique transforms the original set
Multiple Correlation is used to assess the degree of asso-
of variables into as few linear combinations as possible to
ciation between a dependent variable and a set of predictor
explain as much of the total variation in the original data.
variables. In product optimization research several sensory
The linear combinations, identified as the factors or compo-
attributes (independent variables) may be included as
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015

nents, are independent from all other factors. The method

important predictors of consumer acceptance (dependent
is often applied to sensory descriptive panel data to reduce
variable), and the multiple correlation (R) describes the
the number of attributes, or to identify a smaller set of
degree of association between the dependent and independ-
independent attributes to include as independent variables
ent variables. Several books have been published on the
in developing multiple regression models for optimization
topic of Multiple Regression/Correlation (MRC), and the
research. It is also used in optimization research to identify
interested reader is directed to Cohen and Cohen (38) for an
products that form independent groups based on sensory
in-depth discussion.
attributes.
3. Regression
4. Factor Analysis
Regression is a general term applied to equations that fit a
Similar to principle components analysis, factor analysis
line to observed data points. Simple linear, non-linear, and
is a data reduction technique, except it focuses on that part
multiple regression are possible, and the resulting regres-
of the total variation that a variable shares with other vari-
sion line is often used to predict values of the dependent
ables in the set. Some sensory researchers prefer to build
variable (y) from values of the independent variable (x). The
optimization models using factor scores rather than attrib-
sensory scientist will use regression equations, for exam-
utes identified through principle components analysis.
ple, to predict perceived intensity for an attribute based on
However, such a result has limited value when applying the
ingredient concentration. In optimization research, multi-
information to make product change, for example.
ple regression is used to predict consumer liking from a
combination of sensory attributes and their intensities.
5. Cluster Analysis
Analytical measures may also be used as predictor vari-
ables for acceptance in optimization, alone or in conjunc- This data reduction technique is used to find a smaller num-
tion with sensory measures. ber of groups whose members have elements more similar
to one another than to members of another group. Cluster
D. ADDITIONAL MULTIVARIATE METHODS analysis is used in sensory optimization research to identify
unique consumer preference groups, and it is used in the
Several tests in addition to those already described are used
same way in descriptive analysis to identify unique subject
in sensory evaluation to simultaneously examine multiple
groups. In the latter situation, uniqueness may indicate the
variables. Multivariate analysis often provides understand-
need for additional panel training.
ing of important relationships imbedded within the data
and not readily observable by other means. The interested
reader will find that the book by Dillon and Goldstein (39) IX. VISUAL PRESENTATION
offers a useful integration of theory, explanation and illus-
Visual presentations are an important part of understanding
tration for the topic.
and communicating data. They reveal events and trends in
data not readily observed any other way, and they simplify
1. Multivariate Analysis-of-Variance (MANOVA)
results for less technical and non-statistical audiences (40).
This analysis is used to test the significance of a set of vari- Increased availability of desktop computers capable of man-
ables. A good example would be descriptive panel data aging large amounts of data has proven to be of great bene-
where several attributes are evaluated for a product set. fit to sensory scientists. The sensory scientist can stretch,

© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-20

57-20 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2

shrink, rotate, organize and reorganize large and small Smooth Mf

amounts of data with a simple keystroke or two, and in
doing so examine countless relationships among subjects,
attributes and products. In addition to the large number of
generally available analysis and graphing software pro-
Warm Mf Body Mf
grams, such as SAS and SAS/JMP (SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
NC), S-Plus (MathSoft Inc., Seattle, WA), SPSS and BMDP
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), custom programs have been
developed by several companies for application in sensory
evaluation. For the latter, the interested reader is directed to:
Camo, Inc. Corvallis, OR; Compusense, Guelph, Ontario,
Canada; Sensory Computer Systems, Lancaster, PA; and
Tragon Corporation, Redwood City, CA. A few examples of
graphs useful to the sensory scientist are described below.

Puckery Mf Biting Mf
A. HISTOGRAMS
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015

Frequency histograms, together with central tendency and

variance measures, provide important information about
sensory responses to products and how well the data satisfy Chalky
assumptions required for other statistical tests, and allow Wine D coating
for comparisons between products. Figure 57.1 illustrates Wine G
a different Product by Serving Order distribution for Wine K
24 subjects, where each subject evaluated both products
FIGURE 57.2 Typical “spider” plot for selected mouthfeel
(i.e., 12 subjects per serving sequence). The means are lower attributes. Intensity scores are measured from the center out to
for both products in the second serving order, demonstrat- the point where the product crosses. The attributes are spaced
ing a possible order bias, a not uncommon finding in sen- equally around the center point. Bars on spokes represent the
sory studies, and the primary reason for using balanced magnitude of difference for that attribute to be significant using
serving orders. The bimodal distribution and variance the LSD test.

Product A- Product A- Product B- Product B-

1st position 2nd position 1st position 2nd position
6
Mean = 7.92 Mean = 5.08 Mean = 6.17 Mean = 5.25
Variance = 1.17 Variance = 8.26 Variance = 1.97 Variance = 1.48
5

4
Frequency

0
1 5 10 1 5 10 1 5 10 1 5 10
Sweetness intensity
(N = 12; Scale = 1 to 10)

FIGURE 57.1 Illustration of distribution histograms for examining serving order effect. The graph represents 24 subjects that
evaluated two products in two serving orders. Twelve subjects evaluated Product A first, and 12 subjects evaluated Product B first.

© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-21

Sensory Science: Methodology 57-21

differences for Product A when served in the second order
would alert the sensory researcher that it may be risky, or
even inappropriate, to conduct statistical tests for this
result if homogeneity of variances is an issue.
B. QDA SPIDER CHARTS
Figure 57.2 represents a popular way for graphing
descriptive panel results (2,27). Figure 57.2 displays results
only for mouthfeel from a study that included additional
modalities. Examining Figure 57.2, we readily see product
differences for individual attributes, relationships among
the attributes, and the overall tendency for a product to score
low (Wine D), high (Wine K), or in the middle (Wine G)
compared to other products evaluated.
C. SENSORY MAPS
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
descriptive panel data. The maps often group well liked
products together with sensory attributes and consumer
information (e.g., lifestyle and attitude) identified as
highly related to those product preferences. In the case of
descriptive panel data, it is often helpful to visually dis-
play products by attribute results. Figure 57.3 is such a
graph, and demonstrates how products may differ, or
group, based on several attributes across different modal-
ities. Here we see that Wines K and D are scored high for
several different attributes; whereas, Wine G falls between
the two. We would conclude that Wine K is a strong and
high impact product in several areas.
Figure 57.4 is an example of a density map based on a
cluster analysis of consumer acceptance scores for a broad
range of products of the type typically included in a cate-
gory review optimization. The cluster map reveals three

reasonably unique preference groups embedded within

Mapping is frequently used for displaying results of opti- the aggregate population. An appropriate follow-up sen-
mization research involving consumer acceptance and sory strategy is to use multiple regression techniques

0.6

0.4

Metallic Ar
Mouthdry Af t
Sour Aft
Coating Aft
Discriminant function 2 (21.2%)

Green Fl Duration Aft Body Mf

D Grape Fl Fruit Aft K
0.2 Overall Af t
Earthy Ar
Smooth Mf Medicinal Ar Chalky coating
Brown tint
Oak Ar
Fruity Fl
Peppery Fl
0.0
Grape Ar Smoky Fl
Perfumey Ar
Vanilla Fl Bitter Fl Biting Mf

–0.2 Tears
Clear Ap

–0.4
G

–0.4 –0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Discriminant function 1 (78.8%)

FIGURE 57.3 Attribute factor loading for trained panel evaluation of three wines; D, G, and K.

© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-22

57-22 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2

Cluster density map

Group 2

Group 3

Group 1
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015

Preference group 1

Preference group 2
Group centroids
Preference group 3

FIGURE 57.4 Cluster Analysis density map for aggregate acceptance scores. Three unique preference groups were identified.

2
Wine D Wine D Wine K
Wine K
Wine D
Wine D Wine D Wine K
Wine K Wine K
Discriminat axis 2 (21.2%)

Wine D
Wine K
Wine K
Wine D Wine G
0 Wine K
Wine G Wine D Wine K

Wine G
Wine D Wine G
Wine G
Wine D

Wine G Wine K
Wine G G
Wine
–2
Wine G
Wine G

–4

–2 0 2 4
Discriminate axis 1 (78.8%):

FIGURE 57.5 Discriminate plot for three wines across sensory attributes scored by each of 10 subjects. Arrows show two subjects that
differ compared to the other subjects for their evaluation of Products G and K. Filled arrow is Subject #167; open arrow is Subject #542.

© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-23

Sensory Science: Methodology 57-23

Sensory Map

Grape flavor
Fruity aftertaste
Consumer liking

Current control
Market leader

Body Grape aroma Clear appearance

Coating
Factor 2

Prototype A
Perfumy aroma
Competitor
Smoky flavor
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015

Tears
Bitter flavor
Prototype B

Biting mouthfeel

Factor 1

FIGURE 57.6 Sensory map integrating consumer liking and sensory panel attributes for selected products.

TABLE 57.1 obtainable and provide important insights about products

Factor Analysis Summary for Consumer Liking and and subjects.
Sensory Attributes Figure 57.6 is a sensory map that includes consumer
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 acceptance and sensory panel results. The spatial relation-
Clear Appearance 0.935
ships displayed in these types of maps (41) provide use-
Grape Aroma 0.510 ful information to product developers and marketing
Coating ⫺0.804 ⫺0.554 researchers. In this case, the map identified which sensory
Body ⫺0.909 attributes were most associated with which products, and
Grape Flavor 0.732 0.557 that there is a development opportunity to optimize con-
Fruity Aftertaste 0.702 sumer liking for the product category. Sensory maps are
Consumer Liking 0.533 typically derived from Factor Analysis (FA) or Principal
Tears ⫺0.551 Component Analysis (PCA) output, similar to that seen in
Bitter Flavor ⫺0.557 Table 57.1.
Biting Mouthfeel ⫺0.888
Perfumy Aroma 0.950
Smoky Flavor 0.873 X. CONCLUSION
Total
% Variance Explained: 41.13 21.92 19.83 82.88 Sensory evaluation is a valuable resource for the food sci-
entist, and has yet to realize its full potential within the
food industry. This is partly due to a lack of awareness of
to develop sensory models that best fit each unique pref- what it can do and how to best organize and operate sen-
erence group as well as one or more models for the aggre- sory capabilities. The science is dynamic and its applica-
gate population. tions are almost endless, especially as it relates to its role
Figure 57.5 is based on a discriminate analysis of indi- in consumer research. The sensory sciences outlook is
vidual subject scores for the three wines. This information bright as more academic institutions teach and research
provides one way to visually identify how well subjects the topic, and more qualified professionals enter the field.
discriminated among the products. Examining Figure 57.5, In recent years there has been a significant increase in the
we see that two subjects differed most among the panel use of sensory methods as multinational and domestic
regarding scores for Wines G and K. This information can companies introduce these procedures on a global basis.
be used to determine when additional training for subjects This trend will continue, creating new opportunities and
is required, or when a subject may be removed from a panel. demands for the science. Future success will depend in
In either case, these types of visual displays are readily large part on how well sensory professionals and those

© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 DK9848_C057.qxd 04/Nov/05 04:46 PM Page 57-24
57-24 Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering, Volume 2
that teach and employ them understand that sensory eval-
uation is about perception; and how best to measure, ana-
lyze and communicate sensory information.
REFERENCES
1. HT Lawless, H Heymann. Sensory Evaluation of Food:
Principles and Practices Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen
Publishers, Inc., 1998.
2. H Stone, JL Sidel. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 3rd ed.
San Diego: Academic Press, 2004.
3. MA Amerine, RM Pangborn, EB Roessler. Principles of
Sensory Evaluation of Food. New York: Academic
Press, 1965.
4. DR Peryam, FJ Pilgrim, MS Peterson, (eds.). Food
Acceptance Testing Methodology. Washington D.C.:
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 11:02 31 October 2015
Natl. Acad. Sci — Natl. Res. Counc, (1954).
5. Anonymous. Minutes of Division Business Meeting.
Institute of Food Technologists — Sensory Evaluation
Division, IFT, Chicago, Illinois, 1975.
6. MC Bourne. Food Texture and Viscosity: Concept and
Measurement. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
7. A Noble. Instrumental analysis of the sensory properties
of food. Food Technol 29:56–60, 1975.
8. HG Schutz, VG Vely, RB Iden. Relation of odor to
physicochemical properties of compounds (Interim.
Reprot). QM Food and Container Institute for the Armed
Forces. (Contract No. DA-19-129-QM-1500), 1961.
9. WF Wilkens, JD Hartmann. An electronic analog for the
olfactory process. J of Food Sci 29:372–378, 1964.
10. PN Bartlett, JM Elliott, JWGardner. Electronic noses
and their application in the food industry. Food Technol
51: 44–48, 1997.
11. RN Bleibaum, H Stone, T Tan, S Labreche, E Saint-
Martin, S Isz. Comparison of sensory and consumer
results with electronic nose and tongue sensors for apple
juices. Food Quality and Preference 13:409–422, 2002.
12. NS Lewis. The Caltech Electronic Nose Project.
Engineering & Science, No 3, 1996.
13. G. Taubes. The Electronic Nose. Discover 40–50, 1996.
14. L Malcolmson, L Jeffrey, DD Sharma, PKW Ng.
Relationship between sensory clarity and turbidity
values of apple juice. Canadian Institute of Science and
Technology Journal 22:129–132, 1989.
15. J Eggert, K Zook, eds. Physical Requirement Guidelines
for Sensory Evaluation Laboratories. ASTM STP 913.
Am Soc Test Mater, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1986.
16. EB Roessler, RM Pangborn, JL Sidel, H Stone.
Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in
paired-preference, paired-difference, duo-trio and trian-
gle tests. J Food Sci 43:940–943, 1978.
17. M O’Mahony. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical
Methods and Procedures. New York: Dekker, 1986.
18. DM Ennis. The power of sensory discrimination meth-
ods. J. Sensory Studies 8:353–370, 1993.
19. DM Ennis, K Mullen. Theoretical aspects of sensory
discrimination. Chem. Senses 11:513–522, 1986.
20. JER Fritjers. Sensory difference testing and the meas-
urement of sensory discriminability. In Sensory Analysis
© 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
of Foods. 2nd ed. (JR Piggott, ed.). London: Elsevier
Applied Science, 1988.
21. WE Cairncross, LB Sjöström. Flavor profile — a
new approach to flavor problems. Food Technol 4:
308–311, 1950.
22. LB Sjöström, SE Cairncross. The descriptive analysis of
flavor. In: DR Peryam, FJ Pilgrim, MS Peterson. eds.
Food Acceptance Testing Methodology. Washington, DC:
Natl Acad Sci — Natl Res Counc 1954 pp 25–30.
23. JF Caul. The profile method of flavor analysis. Adv Food
Res 7:1–40, 1957.
24. MA Brandt, E Skinner, J Coleman. Texture profile
method. J Food Sci 28:404–410, 1963.
25. AS Szczesniak. Classification of textural characteris-
tics. J Food Sci 28:385–389, 1963.
26. AS Szczesniak, MA Brandt, HH Friedman. Development
of standard rating scales for mechanical parameters of
texture and correlation between the objective and the sen-
sory methods of texture evaluation. J Food Sci 28:
397–403, 1963.
27. H Stone, J Sidel, S Oliver, A Woolsey, RC Singleton.
Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis.
Food Technol 28:24–34, 1974.
28. AA Williams, SP Langron. The use of free-choice pro-
filing for the evaluation of commercial ports. J Sci Food
and Agric 35:558–568, 1984.
29. N Larson-Powers, RM Pangborn. Descriptive analysis
of the sensory properties of beverages and gelatins con-
taining sucrose or synthetic sweeteners. J Food Sci 43:
47–51, 1978.
30. JE Hanson, DA Kendall, NF Smith. The missing link:
correlation of consumer and professional sensory
descriptions. Beverage World 102:108–116, 1983.
31. CR Stampanoni. The quantitative flavor profiling tech-
nique. Perfumer and Flavorist 18:19–24, 1993.
32. H Hahn. Die adaptation des geschmackssinnes.
Z Sinnesphys 65:105–145, 1934.
33. S van Buuren. Analyzing time-intensity responses in sen-
sory evaluation. Food Technol 46:101–104, 1992.
34. N Larson-Powers, RM Pangborn. Paired comparison
and time-intensity measurements of the sensory proper-
ties of beverages and gelatins containing sucrose or syn-
thetic sweeteners. J Food Sci 43:41–46, 1978.
35. JX Guinard, RM Pangborn, CF Shoemaker. Computer-
ized procedure for time-intensity sensory measurements.
J Food Sci 50:543–546, 1985.
36. MC Gacula Jr, J Singh. Statistical Methods in Food and
Consumer Research. Orlando: Academic Press, 1987.
37. MC Gacula Jr. Design and Analysis of Sensory Optimiza-
tion. Connecticut: Food and Nutrition Press, 1993.
38. J Cohen, P Cohen. Applied Multiple Regression/Correla-
tion Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.
39. WR Dillon, M Goldstein. Multivariate Analysis: Methods
and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984.
40. WS Cleveland. Visualizing Data, Summit, New Jersey:
Hobart Press, 1994.
41. K Greenhoff, HJH MacFie. Preference mapping in prac-
tice. In: Measurement of Food Preferences. (HJH
MacFie and DMH Thompson, eds.). Blackie, Academic
and Professional. 137–166, 1994.