Case studies of industrial applications of the “M+N” classification method with larger M and N for visual and manual inspections

In recent sensory literature, Bi and Kuesten (2015a. Food Quality and Preference, 43, 47–52; 2015b. Journal of Sensory Studies, 30, 461–471) have proposed the “M + N” classification method with larger M and N (>3) for discrimination testing based on Fisher's exact test. Industry studies using the method are shared in this article to illustrate application of the method. The tests and measures are taken for non-fatiguing visual and manual inspections conducted across a variety of product categories. Further, within the examples provided, a validation between labs is documented and results of the method are compared to results from other methods (2-Alternative Choice and 2-Alternative Forced Choice) based on common conventional sensory measurement Thurstonian d′. Estimations are given of Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Cronbach's coefficient alpha for evaluation of panel performance in the test using the “M + N” classification method with larger M and N (only for M = N > 3). Practical applications Sorting methods are popular and often used for rapid investigation of product quality, product differences, or consumer perception and are used to help guide product maintenance and/or development efforts. The “M + N” classification method with larger M and N, a type of sorting technique, can be applied for sensory discrimination and perceptual tests with generation of various indices, including Thurstonian discriminal distance delta (or d′) thereby offering the ability to compare results with other sensory discrimination methods.

[1]  Carla Kuesten,et al.  INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (ICC): A FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING AND ASSESSING PERFORMANCE OF TRAINED SENSORY PANELS AND PANELISTS , 2012 .

[2]  John M. Ennis A Thurstonian Analysis of the Two‐Out‐of‐Five Test , 2013 .

[3]  W. Haenszel,et al.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. , 1959, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  John M. Ennis,et al.  Sensory Difference Tests as Measurement Instruments: a Review of Recent Advances , 2014 .

[5]  Jian Bi,et al.  A THURSTONIAN MODEL AND STATISTICAL INFERENCE FOR THE 2-ALTERNATIVE CHOICE TEST WITH BOTH TEST PAIRS AND PLACEBO PAIRS , 2015 .

[6]  Jian Bi,et al.  Revisiting Fisher’s ‘Lady Tasting Tea’ from a perspective of sensory discrimination testing , 2015 .

[7]  Jian Bi,et al.  Sensory Measurements for the Method of “M+N” with Larger M and N: SENSORY MEASUREMENTS , 2015 .

[8]  Estimation of Thurstonian Models for Various Forced‐Choice Sensory Discrimination Methods as a Form of the “M + N” Test , 2014 .

[9]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  Rapid descriptive sensory methods – Comparison of Free Multiple Sorting, Partial Napping, Napping, Flash Profiling and conventional profiling , 2012 .

[10]  H. Kalmus,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF TASTE SENSITIVITY TO PHENYLTHIOUREA (P.T.C.) , 1949 .

[11]  P. S. Vivekananthan,et al.  A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Daniel M. Ennis,et al.  THE POWER OF SENSORY DISCRIMINATION METHODS , 1993 .

[13]  N. T. Gridgeman The Lady Tasting Tea, and Allied Topics , 1959 .

[14]  Jian Bi,et al.  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC (ROC) CURVES FOR THE RATINGS OF THE A-NOT A AND THE SAME-DIFFERENT METHODS , 2013 .

[15]  Danny D. Steinberg,et al.  The Word Sort: An instrument for semantic analysis , 1967 .

[16]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception , 1995 .

[17]  John M. Ennis,et al.  Importance of Correct Instructions in the Tetrad Test , 2013 .