Idiographic duo-trio tests using a constant-reference based on preference of each consumer: Sample presentation sequence in difference test can be customized for individual consumers to reduce error.

As reformulations and processing changes are increasingly needed in the food industry to produce healthier, more sustainable, and cost effective products while maintaining superior quality, reliable measurements of consumers' sensory perception and discrimination are becoming more critical. Consumer discrimination methods using a preferred-reference duo-trio test design have been shown to be effective in improving the discrimination performance by customizing sample presentation sequences. However, this design can add complexity to the discrimination task for some consumers, resulting in more errors in sensory discrimination. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of different types of test instructions using the preference-reference duo-trio test design where a paired-preference test is followed by 6 repeated preferred-reference duo-trio tests, in comparison to the analytical method using the balanced-reference duo-trio. Analyses of d' estimates (product-related measure) and probabilistic sensory discriminators in momentary numbers of subjects showing statistical significance (subject-related measure) revealed that only preferred-reference duo-trio test using affective reference-framing, either by providing no information about the reference or information on a previously preferred sample, improved the sensory discrimination more than the analytical method. No decrease in discrimination performance was observed with any type of instruction, confirming that consumers could handle the test methods. These results suggest that when repeated tests are feasible, using the affective discrimination method would be operationally more efficient as well as ecologically more reliable for measuring consumers' sensory discrimination ability.

[1]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[2]  Morten Meilgaard,et al.  Sensory Evaluation Techniques , 2020 .

[3]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  POWER AND SENSITIVITY OF THE SAME‐DIFFERENT TEST: COMPARISON WITH TRIANGLE AND DUO‐TRIO METHODS , 1998 .

[4]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Triangle and tetrad protocols: Small sensory differences, resampling and consumer relevance , 2014 .

[5]  Michael J. Hautus,et al.  Unspecified duo–trio tests can be as powerful as the specified 2-AFC: Effects of instructions and familiarization procedures on cognitive decision strategies , 2016 .

[6]  Herbert Stone,et al.  Sensory Evaluation Practices , 1985 .

[7]  Howard R. Moskowitz,et al.  Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development , 2006 .

[8]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: effects of memory and response bias , 2002 .

[9]  Min-A Kim,et al.  Higher performance of constant-reference duo–trio test incorporating affective reference framing in comparison with triangle test , 2014 .

[10]  John Prescott,et al.  Consumer perceptions of food and beverage flavour , 2015 .

[11]  Thierry Worch,et al.  A Practical Guideline for Discrimination Testing Combining both the Proportion of Discriminators and Thurstonian Approaches , 2013 .

[12]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices , 1998 .

[13]  John Prescott,et al.  Multisensory processes in flavour perception and their influence on food choice , 2015 .

[14]  H. Lee,et al.  Optimal difference test sequence and power for discriminating soups of varying sodium content: DTFM version of dual-reference duo-trio with unspecified tetrad tests. , 2015, Food research international.

[15]  Michael J. Hautus,et al.  Can the same-different test use a β-criterion as well as a τ-criterion? , 2007 .

[16]  Danielle van Hout,et al.  Measuring Meaningful Differences: Sensory Testing Based Decision Making in an Industrial Context; Applications of Signal Detection Theory and Thurstonian Modelling , 2014 .

[17]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol , 2012 .

[18]  R. Christensen,et al.  Superior performance of constant-saltier-reference DTF and DTFM to same-different tests by consumers for discriminating products varying sodium contents , 2014 .

[19]  B. Rousseau Sensory discrimination testing and consumer relevance , 2015 .

[20]  Rosires Deliza,et al.  THE GENERATION OF SENSORY EXPECTATION BY EXTERNAL CUES AND ITS EFFECT ON SENSORY PERCEPTION AND HEDONIC RATINGS: A REVIEW , 1996 .

[21]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and new , 2003 .

[22]  Min-A Kim,et al.  Investigation of operationally more powerful duo-trio test protocols: Effects of different reference schemes , 2012 .

[23]  Michael J. Hautus,et al.  Comparison of performance in the A-Not A, 2-AFC, and same-different tests for the flavor discrimination of margarines: The effect of cognitive decision strategies , 2007 .

[24]  M. Hautus,et al.  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? , 2016 .

[25]  COMMENTARY: DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT SCALING: THE GNASHING OF PSYCHOPHYSICAL WORLDVIEWS , 2005 .

[26]  Min-A Kim,et al.  Affective discrimination methodology: Determination and use of a consumer-relevant sensory difference for food quality maintenance , 2015 .

[27]  Min-A Kim,et al.  Duo‐Trio Difference‐Preference Test with Two Replications: Use of Psychological Biases for Measuring Meaningful Preference , 2015 .