Transitioning from proportion of discriminators to a more meaningful measure of sensory difference

Sensory discrimination by consumers of multiple stimuli from a reference: Stimulus configuration in A-Not AR and constant-ref. duo-trio superior to triangle and unspecified tetrad?

“…In other words, these results suggest an inferiority in the stimulus configurations available in the triangle and unspecified tetrad tests, compared to the reminder designs, when defining operational test power in terms of an equal number of stimuli, not the number of tests per se. Previously, test power comparisons in the literature were most often considered only in terms of the equal number of tests (for example, Bi, 2011;Ennis, 1993;Ennis & Jesionka, 2011;Jesionka et al, 2014;Kim, Yoon, & Lee, 2015;Schlich, 1993). Only recently an attempt to examine the operational test power for consumer discrimination tests in terms of an equal number of stimuli used for the tests was reported in a study that confirmed the operational inferiority of the same-different test, compared to the constant-reference duo-trio test (Choi et al, 2014).…”

“…discriminated from each other include only a pair of stimuli (2 stimulus types) (Choi, Kim, Christensen, van Hout, & Lee, 2014;Ennis & Christensen, 2014a, 2014bKim, Chae, van Hout, & Lee, 2014;McClure & Lawless, 2010;Olivas, Lopez-Malo, Angulo, & O'Mahony, 2014;Stocks, van Hout, & Hautus, 2013, 2014van Hout, Hautus, & Lee, 2011). Also, the relative test power of the various discrimination test methods have been only investigated based on the same numbers of tests (Bi, 2011;Ennis, 1993;Ennis & Jesionka, 2011;Jesionka, Rousseau, & Ennis, 2014;Kim et al, 2014;Schlich, 1993).…”

“…When the number of tests increases for the reminder methods, their relative theoretical power deficiency can be compromised. Namely, in a sensory discrimination test, as mentioned earlier, the number of test stimuli required often determines the operational test power and applied efficiency (van Hout et al, 2011), although the test power has typically been demonstrated in terms of the number of tests required to detect the given sensory difference (Bi, 2011;Ennis, 1993;Ennis & Jesionka, 2011;Jesionka et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014;Schlich, 1993). Fig.…”

Applying Disruptive Preference Test Protocols to Increase the Number of “No Preference” Responses in the Placebo Pair, Using Chinese Consumers

“…The use of this fundamental measure allowed comparison between studies using different experimental protocols, for example with and without the “no preference” option (Alfaro‐Rodriguez and others ). Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the statistics associated with these computations (Ennis and Ennis , 2012b; Christensen and others , ; Jesionka and others ; Bi and others ).…”

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

“…The concept of the maximum sensory difference that can be used as a critical guidance for corporate quality maintenance -to be set as a business 'action standard' (cf. Jesionka, Rousseau, & Ennis, 2014;van Hout, 2014) -has been referred to as many different terms including 'allowed difference' (Bi, 2005), 'similarity limit' (Bi, 2011), 'consumer relevance' (Ishii et al, 2014) and 'meaningful difference' van Hout, 2014) in applications of sensory similarity and discrimination test methodology. In the business context, the consumer relevance can be defined as consumers' acceptance change in the sensory quality of the products (i.e.…”