Appendix:

Some useful tables

for sensory tests

The following tables were derived using the MIN IT AB

statistical package.

Table At. The number of assessors in a paired comparison or

duo-trio test required to give correct judgements, at three different
significance levels (one-tailed test) Note: not valid for preference

Number of Significance level

assessors 5% 1% 0.1%

5 5
6 6
7 7 7
8 7 8
9 8 9
10 9 10 10
11 9 10 11
12 10 11 12
13 10 12 13
14 11 12 13
15 12 13 14
16 12 14 15
17 13 14 16
18 13 15 16
19 14 15 17
20 15 16 18
21 15 17 18
22 16 17 19
112 Appendix: Some useful tables for sensory tests
Table At. continued

Number of Significance level

assessors 5% 1% 0.1%

23 16 18 20
24 17 19 20
25 18 19 21
26 18 20 22
27 19 20 22
28 19 21 23
29 20 22 24
30 20 22 24
31 21 23 25
32 22 24 26
33 22 24 26
34 23 25 27
35 23 25 27
36 24 26 28
37 24 26 29
38 25 27 29
39 26 28 30
40 26 28 30
41 27 29 31
42 27 29 32
43 28 30 32
44 28 31 33
45 29 31 34
46 30 32 34
47 30 32 35
48 31 33 36
49 31 34 36
50 32 34 37
 Appendix: Some useful tables for sensory tests 113
Table A2 The number of assessors in a triangular test required to
give correct judgements, at three different significance levels.

Number of Significance level

assessors 5% 1% 0.1%

5 4 5
6 5 6
7 5 6 7
8 6 7 8
9 6 7 8
10 7 8 9
11 7 8 10
12 8 9 10
13 8 9 11
14 9 10 11
15 9 10 12
16 9 11 12
17 10 11 13
18 10 12 13
19 11 12 14
20 11 13 14
21 12 13 15
22 12 14 15
23 12 14 16
24 13 15 16
25 13 15 17
26 14 15 17
27 14 16 18
28 15 16 18
29 15 17 19
30 15 17 19
31 16 18 20
32 16 18 20
33 17 18 21
34 17 19 21
35 17 19 22
36 18 20 22
37 18 20 22
38 19 21 23
39 19 21 23
40 19 21 24
41 20 22 24
42 20 22 25
114 Appendix: Some useful tables for sensory tests
Table A2. continued

Number of Significance level

assessors 5% 1% 0.1%

43 20 23 25
44 21 23 26
45 21 24 26
46 22 24 27
47 22 24 27
48 22 25 27
49 23 25 28
50 23 26 28
 Glossary of
terms used in
sensory analysis

In most cases, contributors to these Guidelines have used

nomenclature as defined in the International Standard
Sensory analysis - Vocabulary (ISO, 1990). Extracts from
International Standards are reproduced with permission.
Complete copies can be obtained through national stan-
dards bodies and readers should refer to these documents
for definition of terms not covered in this summary.

Acid (taste): Describes the primary taste produced by

dilute aqueous solutions of most acid
substances (e.g. citric acid and tartaric acid).

After-taste: Olfactory and/or gustatory sensation which

occurs after the elimination of the product,
and which differs from the sensations
perceived whilst the product was in the
mouth.

Appearance: All the visible attributes of the food.

Assessor: Person taking part in a sensory test.

Attribute: Perceptible characteristic.

Bias: Systematic errors which may be positive or

negative.
116 Glossary of terms used in sensory analysis
Bitter (taste): Describes the primary taste produced by
dilute aqueous solutions of various
substances such as quinine and caffeine.

Comparative Comparison of stimuli presented at the

assessment: same time.

Confidence The limits within which the true value of a

(statistical) : population parameter is stated to lie with a
specified probability, e.g. 95% confidence.

Consumer: Person who uses a product.

Contrast Increase in response to differences between

effect: two simultaneous or consecutive stimuli.

Control: Sample of the material under test chosen as

a reference point against which all other
samples are compared.

Convergence Decrease in response to differences between

effect: two simultaneous or consecutive stimuli.

Detection Minimum value of a sensory stimulus

threshold: needed to give rise to a sensation. The
sensation need not be identified.

Difference Any method of test involving comparison

test: between samples.

Difference Value of the smallest perceptible difference

threshold: in the physical intensity of a stimulus.

Discrimina- Act of qualitative and/or quantitative

tion: differentiation between two or more stimuli.

Duo-trio Method of difference testing in which the

test: control is presented first, followed by two
samples, one of which is the same as the
control sample. The assessor is asked to
identify the sample which is the same as the
control.
 Glossary of terms used in sensory analysis 117
Error (of The difference between the observed value
assessment): (or assessment) and the true value.

Factorial An experimental design where all the factors

design: included are measured.

Hedonic: Relating to like or dislike.

Independent Evaluation of one or more stimuli without

assessment: direct comparison.

Magnitude Process of assigning values to the intensities

estimation: of an attribute in such a way that the ratio of
the value assigned and the assessor's
perception are the same.

Objective Any method in which the effects of personal

method: opinions are minimized.

Off-flavour: Atypical flavour often associated with

deterioration or transformation of the
product.

Off-odour: Atypical odour often associated with

deterioration or transformation of the
product.

Paired Method in which stimuli are presented in

comparison pairs for comparison on the basis of some
test: defined attributes.

Panel: Group of assessors chosen to participate in a

sensory test.

Perception: Awareness of the effects of single or

multiple sensory stimuli.

Preference Test to assess preference between two or

test: several samples.

Profile: The use of descriptive terms in evaluating

the sensory attribute of a sample and the
intensity of each attribute.
118 Glossary of terms used in sensory analysis
Quality: Collection of features and characteristics of a
product or service that confer its ability to
satisfy stated or implied needs.

Qualitative Describing the nature of the product.

analysis:

Quantitative Measurement of perceived amount of each

analysis: attribute in the product.

Question- A form having a set of questions designed

naire: to obtain information.

Ranking: Method of classification in which a series of

samples is placed in order of intensity or
degree of some specified attribute. This
process is ordinal with no attempt made to
assess the magnitude of the differences.

Rating: Method of classification according to

categories, each of which is placed on an
ordinal scale.

Recognition Minimum value of a sensory stimulus

threshold: permitting identification of the sensation
perceived.

Respondent: Person taking part in a consumer test.

Reference: Substance, different from the material under

test, used to define an attribute or a
specified level of a given attribute.

Replicate: To evaluate a sample more than once.

Salty (taste): Describes the primary taste produced by

aqueous solutions of various substances
such as sodium chloride.

Sample: (i) A product type.

(ii) One piece for evaluation.
 Glossary of terms used in sensory analysis 119
Scale: Continuum, divided into successive values,
which may be graphical, descriptive or
numerical, used in reporting the level of a
characteristic.

Scale Scale expressing degrees of like or dislike.

(hedonic):

Scale Scale where numbers are chosen in such a

(interval): way that equal numerical intervals are
assumed to correspond to equal differences
in sensory perception.

Scale Scale where points are arranged according

(ordinal): to a pre-established or continuous
progression.

Scale (ratio): Scale where numbers are chosen in such a

way that equal numerical ratios are assumed
to correspond to equal sensory perception
ratios.

Scoring: Method of evaluation of a product or of the

attributes of a product by means of scores
(having a mathematical significance).

Screening: Preliminary selection procedure.

Sensory: Relating to the use of the sense organs.

Sensory Examination of the sensory attributes of a

analysis: product perceptible by the sense organs.

Sensory Form of sensory adaptation in which a

fatigue: decrease in sensitivity occurs. Sensory
adaptation is a temporary modification of
the sensitivity of a sense organ due to
continued and/or repeated stimulation.

Subjective Any method in which the personal opinions

method: are taken in consideration.
120 Glossary of terms used in sensory analysis
Sweet Describes the primary taste produced by
(taste): aqueous solutions of various substances
such as sucrose.

Taint: Taste or odour foreign to the product.

Triangular Method of difference testing involving the

test: simultaneous presentation of three coded
samples, two of which are identical. The
assessor is asked to select the sample
perceived as different.

Variables: Factors which are changed under

experimental control.

Source: ISO 5492-1: 1977, ISO 5492-2: 1978, ISO 5492-3:

1979, ISO 5492-4: 1981, ISO 5492-5: 1983 and ISO 5492-6:
1985.
 Bibliography

Amerine, M.A., Pangborn, R.M. and Roessler, E.B. (1965)

Principles of Sensory Evaluation, Academic Press, New
York.
ASTM (1968a) Basic Principles of Sensory Evaluation. Special
Technical Publication No. 433, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

ASTM (1968b) Manual on Sensory Testing Methods. Special

Technical Publication No. 434, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM (1968c) Correlation of Subjective-Objective Methods in
the Study of Odors and Tastes. Special Technical Publica-
tion No. 440, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.
ASTM (1973) Compilation of Odor and Taste Threshold Values
Data. OS No. 48, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM (1976) Correlating Sensory Objective Measurements.
Special Technical Publication No. 594, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

ASTM (1979) Manual on Consumer Sensory Evaluation.

Special Technical Publication No. 682, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

ASTM (1981) Guidelines for the Selection and Training of

Sensory Panel Members. Special Technical Publication No.
122 Bibliography
758, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadel-
phia.
Ball, A.D. and Buckwell, G.D. (1986) Work Out Statistics: 'A'
Level. MacMillan, London.
BSI (1975) BS 5098: Glossary of Terms Relating to Sensory
Analysis of Foods. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI (1982) BS 5929: Methods for Sensory Analysis of Foods.
Part 2: Paired Comparison Test. British Standards Institu-
tion, London.
BSI (1984) BS 5929: Methods for Sensory Analysis of Foods.
Part 3: Triangular Test. British Standards Institution,
London. .
BSI (1986a) BS 5929 Methods for Sensory Analysis of Foods.
Part 1: General Guide to Methodology. British Standards
Institution, London.
BSI (1986b) BS 5929 Methods for Sensory Analysis of Foods.
Part 4: Flavour Profile Methods. British Standards Institu-
tion, London.
BSI (1989) BS 5929 Methods for Sensory Analysis of Foods. Part
6: Ranking. British Standards Institution, London.
Cairncross, E.E. and Sjostrom, L.B. (1950) Flavor profiles: A
new approach to flavor problems. Food Technology, 4 (8),
308-11.
Chatfield, C. (1983) Statistics for Technology. Chapman and
Hall, London.
Chatfield, C. and Collins, A.J. (1980) Introduction to Multi-
variate Analysis. Chapman and Hall, London.
Cochran, W.G. and Cox, G.M. (1957) Experimental Designs.
John Wiley, New York.
Danzart, M. (1986) Univariate procedures, In: Statistical
procedures in Food Research, ed. J.R. Piggott. Elsevier
Applied Science, London, pp 19-59.
EOQC (1976) Glossary of Terms Used in Quality Control,
European Organisation for Quality Control.
Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977) A Manual for Repertory
Grid Technique, Academic Press, London.
 Bibliography 123
Gacula, M.e. and Singh., J. (1984) Statistical Methods in Food
and Consumer Research, Academic Press, London.
Gower, J.e. (1975) Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psycho-
metrika, 40 (1), 33-51.
Greenbaum, T.L. (1988) The Practical Handbook and Guide to
Focus Group Research., Lexington Books, Toronto.
Harper, R. (1972) Human Senses in Action, Churchill
Livingstone, Edinburgh.
HMSO (1984) Food Labelling Regulations. Statutory Instru-
ment No. 1305. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
HMSO (1988) Health and Safety: Control of Substances
Hazardous to Health Regulations. Statutory Instrument No.
1657, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.

HMSO (1989) Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations.

Statutory Instrument No. 786, Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, London.
HMSO (1990) Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations.
Statutory Instrument No. 2488, Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, London
Ishihara, S. (1967) Tests for Colour-Blindness, Kanehara
Shupp an Co. Ltd, Tokyo.
ISO (1979) Sensory Analysis - Determination of Sensitivity of
Taste., ISO 3972.
ISO (1990) Sensory Analysis - Vocabulary. ISOIDIS 54921
DAM (Draft)
Jellinek, G. (1985) Sensory Evaluation of Food: Theory and
Practice, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
Jowitt, R.J., (1974) The terminology of food texture. Texture
Studies 5, 351-58
Kapsalis, J.G. (1987) Objective Methods in Food Quality
Assessment, CRC Press, Florida.
Kramer, A. and Twigg, B.A. (1970) Quality Control for the
Food Industry, AVI Publishing Company, Connecticut.
Land, D.G. and Shepherd, D. (1988) Scaling and ranking
124 Bibliography
methods, in: Sensory Analysis of Foods, 2nd edn, (ed. J.R.
Piggott), Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp 115-85.
Langron, S.P. (1984) The Statistical Treatment of Sensory
Analysis Data. PhD Thesis, University of Bath.
Lebart, L., Mirineau, A. and Warwick, KM. (1984) Multi-
variate Descriptive Analysis: Correspondence Analysis and
Related Techniques for Large Matrices, Wiley, New York.
Lyon, D.H., McEwan, J.A., Taylor, J.M. and Reynolds, M.A.
(1988) Sensory quality of frozen Brussels sprouts in a
time-temperature tolerance study. Food Quality and
Preference 1 (1), 37-41.
MacFie, H.J.H. and Thomson, D.M.H. (1988) Preference
Mapping and Multidimensional Scaling. In: Sensory
Analysis of Foods, 2nd edn, (ed. J.R. Piggott) Elsevier
Applied Science, London pp. 381-409.
Malik, H.J. and Mullin, K. (1973) A First Course in Probability
and Statistics, Addison-Wesley, London.
Market Research Society (1988) Code of Conduct
Martens, H., Wold, S. and Martens, M. (1983) A layman's
guide to multivariate data analysis. In: Food Research and
Data Analysis. (ed. H. Martens and H. Russwurm, Jr.).
Applied Science Publishers, London.
McEwan, J.A. (1989) Statistical Methodology for the Analysis
and Interpretation of Sensory Profile and Consumer Accep-
tability Data. Technical Memorandum No 536, CFDRA,
Chipping Campden.
McEwan, J.A. and Hallett, E.M. (1990) A Guide to the Use and
Interpretation of Generalized Procrustes Analysis, Statistical
Manual No. 1. CFDRA, Chipping Campden.
McEwan, J.A., Colwill, J.S. and Thomson, D.M.H. (1989) The
application of two free-choice profile methods to inves-
tigate the sensory characteristics of chocolate. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 3 (4), 271-86.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G.V. and Carr, B.T. (1987) Sensory
Evaluation Techniques. Vols I and II, CRC Press, Florida.
MINITAB (1990) Minitab Reference Manual - Release 7,
Minitab Inc., Pennsylvania, USA
 Bibliography 125
Moskowitz, H.R. (1977) Magnitude estimation: notes on
what, when and why to use it. Journal of Food Quality, 3,
195-228.
Moskowitz, H.R. (1983) Product Testing and Sensory Evalua-
tion of Foods: Marketing and R&D Approaches. Food and
Nutrition Press, Connecticut.
Moskowitz, H.R. (1985) New Directions for Product Testing
and Sensory Analysis of Foods, Food and Nutrition Press,
Connecticut.
Neave, H.R. (1989) Statistics Tables, Unwin Hyman, London.
O'Mahony, M. (1986) Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical
Methods and Procedures, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York
Oppenheim, A.N. (1966) Questionnaire Design and Attitude
Measurement, Gower, Aldershot.
Passmore, R. and Eastwood, M.A. (1986) Human Nutrition
and Dietetics, Churchill Livingstone, London.
Peryam, D.R. and Pilgrim, F.J. (1957) Hedonic scale method
for measuring food preferences, Food Technology, 11 (9),
9-14.
Piggott, J.R. (1986) Statistical Procedures in Food Research,
Elsevier Applied Science, London.
Piggott, J.R. (1988) Sensory Analysis of Foods, Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers, London.
Poulton, E.C. (1989) Bias In Quantifying Judgements, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, London.
Savage, N. and Edwards, C. (1984) A Guide to the Data
Protection Act, Financial Training Publications, London.
Schiffman, 5.5., Reynolds, M.L. and Young, F.W. (1981)
Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods
and Applications, Academic Press, New York.
Spiegel, M.R. (1972) Theory and Problems of Statistics.
Schaum's Outline Series, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Stone, H. and Sidel, J.L. (1985) Sensory Evaluation Practices,
Academic Press, London.
126 Bibliography
Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A. and Singleton,
R.c. (1974) Sensory evaluation by qualitative descriptive
analysis. Food Technology, 28 (11), 24--32.
Thomson, D.M.H. (1988) Food Acceptability, Elsevier Ap-
plied Science, London.
Velleman, P.F. and Hoaglin, D.C. (1981) The Applications,
Basics and Computing of of Exploratory Data Analysis,
Duxbury Press, Boston.
Williams, A.A. and Atkin, B.A. (1983) Sensory Quality in
Foods and Beverages - Definition, Measurement and Control,
Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
Williams, A.A. and Langron, S.P. (1984) The use of free-
choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, 558-68.
Williams, A.A. and Arnold, G.M. (1985) A comparison of six
coffees characterized by conventional profiling, free-
choice profiling, and similarity methods. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 36, 204--14.
Wolfe, A.R. (ed.) (1984), Standardised Questions: A Review for
Market Research Executives. Market Research SOciety.

Statistical Packages
BMDP BMDP Statistical Software, Cork
Technology Farm, Model Farm Road,
Cork, Ireland.
BMDP Statistical Software Inc., 1440
Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA
90025, USA.
GENSTAT NAG Ltd, Wilkinson House, Jordon
Hill Road, Oxford 0)(2 8DR, Great
Britain.
GUM NAG Ltd, Wilkinson House, Jordon
Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, Great
Britain.
MINITAB CLECOM Ltd, The Research Park,
Vincent Drive, Edgbaston,
Birmingham, B15 2SQ.
Minitab Inc., 3081 Enterprise Drive,
State College, PA 16801, USA.
 Bibliography 127
RSIl BBN UK Ltd, Software Products
Division, One Heathrow Boulevard,
286 Bath Road, West Drayton,
Middlesex UB7 ODQ, Great Britain.
BBN Software Products, Marketing
Communications, 10 Fawcett Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
SAS SAS Software Ltd, Witting ton House,
Henley Road, Medmenham, Marlow,
Bucks SL7 2EB, Great Britain.
SAS Institute Inc., Box 8000, SAS
Circle, Cary, NC 27511-8000, USA.
SENPAK Reading Scientific Services Ltd, Lord
Zuckerman Research Centre,
Whiteknights, PO Box 234, Reading
RG6 2LA, Great Britain.
SEN STAT Sensory Research Laboratories Ltd, 4
High Street, Nailsea, Bristol, BS19
lBW, Great Britain.
STATGRAPHICS Statistical Graphics Corporation, 5 In-
dependence Way, Princeton Corp. Ctr,
Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Cocking and Drury Ltd, 180 Tottenham
Court Road, London WIP 9LE, Great
Britain.
SPSS SPSS UK Ltd, 9-11 Queens Road,
Walton-on-Thames, Surrey KT12 5LU,
Great Britain.
SPSS Inc., 444 North Michigan Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
 Index

Page numbers in italic represent figures, numbers in bold represent

tables.

Acceptability, individual seniority 49-50

differences 71-2 sensitivity 51
Acceptance tests 31-3,52, 54, 57 training 45, 55-6, 85
see also Monadic tests; Pair Atmosphere 10
comparison tests
After-taste 28, 29, 45, 95, 115 Benchmarks 12
Amplitude 28 Bias 3-4, 6, 29, 30, 78, 82, 115
Analysis of variance 26, 27, 90, Booths 78
94 Box and whisker diagrams 66,
evaluating sources 68 71
factorial designs 68
multiple comparison tests 68 CA, see Correspondence
one way 67 analysis
two way 67 Canonical variate analysis 70
with interaction 67-8 Carrier products 43
Appearance 14, 115 Clients' needs 19-20
Assessors 28,29,30,34,45,48, Closed-response questions 34-5
54,61, 102, 111-12, Cluster analysis 70
113-14,115 Codes of Practice 87
ability 48-9, 55 Colour-blindness 53
measurement of 55 Computers 21, 74-5, 86
availability 48 programs 74-5
briefing and motivation 82, 85 see also MINITAB
feedback 82 Confidence intervals 66
health 49 Consensus profiling 28
numbers of 52-3,60 Context of test 40-1
personality 49-50 Controls 106, 116
personal habits 49 Conventional profiling analysis
restrictions imposed on 46 28-30, 57, 82, 89, 90, 94
screening of 51,53-5 Correlation coefficients 72
on ability 53-5 Correspondence analysis 69
 Index 129
Cost and time 20 scale 34
CV A, see Canonical variate Human factor 4, 6
analysis Hypothesis testing 73-4,87, 106
Type I error 73, 74
DA, see Discriminant analysis Type II error 73, 74
Deadlines 79-80
Defects, freedom from 14 Information, structuring 4-5
Description, of product 2
Descriptive profiling 11-12
Descriptive tests 27-30, 51-2, Judgements, number of 45
54,55,56-7,60,66-70
see also Consensus profiling; Kruskal Wallis test 71
Conventional profiling;
Free-choice profiling
Difference from control test 26 Light 10,78
Difference tests 23-7, 51, 52, 54,
55,56,59, 60, 116 Magnitude estimation 26-7, 54
multiple 24, 26-7 Mann-Whitney U test 71
Discriminant analysis 69-70 Means comparison
Discrimination 2 of more than two 67
Discrimination tests, see of two 67
Difference tests MINITAB 25, 74, 111-12
Distribution and retail Monadic tests 31
procedures 11 Multi-choice questions 34-5
Duo trio tests 23, 25-6, 54, 66, Multiple linear regression 72
111-12,116 Multi-sample ranking for
preference 54
Elimination, sample number Multivariate analysis 12, 64,
reduction 43 69-70
Environment, tasting 4, 6
Equipment, for analysis 77, 78-9
Non-parametric analysis 64, 65
External preference mapping
Normal distribution 64-5
ideal-point model 72, 73
vector model 72-3
Objectives 19
FA, see Factor analysis Odours 14, 28, 29, 41-2, 44, 45,
Factor analysis 69 53, 78, 79, 101, 116
Feeling factors 28, 29 see also Taints
Flavours 14, 28, 29, 40-2, 45, 95, One-tailed test 66
101,116 Open-ended questions 35-6
see also Taints Order effect 41
Free-choice profiling 30, 96
Friedman rank test 26, 32, 71 Packaging 10
Pair comparison test 23, 24,
Generalized Procrustes analysis 31-2, 54, 59, 65, 66, 70,
30,69,72,96,98 111-12,116
GP A, see Generalized Procrustes Palatability 40
analysis Palate cleansers 42
Parametric analysis 64, 65
Hedonic 3, 96, 98, 116, 118 Partial least-squares regression
rating 32-3,54 72
130 Index
PCA, see Principal component experimental details 85
analysis key points 87
Physical fatigue 45 reasons 84
Preference mapping 98 recommendations 87
Preparation, limitations 45--6 references 84
Presentation 4 results 86-7
Principal component analysis statistics used 86
69,70, 72 techniques used 84-5
Products type required 84
acceptability 17 who it's aimed at 83
availability 79 Resources 80--1
loss 44
mapping 12-13,95--9 Samples
matching 93-4, 95-9 ~ control 62-3, 90
case history 93-4 effect of ordering 61
through product mapping number of 60
95--9 per assessor 62
new development 62 relationship with attributes
quantity supplied 44, 45 68-9
reformulation 62 relevancy 40
safety 39-40 size of difference 62
specification 13-14 within-sample variation 61
types 43 Scaling method 20--2, 22, 118
Production, preparation 40 ordinal scale 21, 22
interval scale 21, 22
QDA, see Quantitative nominal scale 20--1
descriptive analysis ratio scale 21, 22
Quadratic regression analysis 72 Screening 12, 118
Quality controls 3-4, 14, 15, 50, Sensory profiles 27
117 Session effects 41, 61
Quantitative descriptive Session lengths 80, 81
analysis, see 'Settling' 44
Conventional profiling Shelf-life 9-lO, 79, 89-91
analysis case history 89-91
Questionnaires 33-8, 85 Simple linear regression
content of questions 37 analysis 72
final appearance 37--8 Sizes 14
length 36 Specification and quality
question order 36 controls 109-10
type of questions 34-6 'Spider plots' 94
where used 34 Statistical help 59-60
Storage procedures 11, 44
Ranking test 26, 32, 54, 55, 56, Subjective judgements 4
117
Replication 60--1, 117 Tactile analysis 44
Reports 83-7 Taints 15--17, 50, 53-5, 79, 118
comments 86 investigation case history
constraints 84 101-3
data-collection method 85 prevention case history 105--7
data format 85--6 sources 16
data retention 87 tests 51
 Index 131
Target setting 11, 12 Triangular tests 23, 24-5, 54, 55,
Tastes 28, 44, 95--6 65, 66, 90, 113-14, 118
Temperatures 10, 61 forced-choice options 25
control of 42-3 no-perceivable-difference
Test areas 77-8 options 25
Testing panels 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, Two dime national plots 72
41, 44, 60, 61, 96, 110, 117 Two-out-of-five tests 26, 54
consumers 30 Two-sample preference tests 54
leaders 47, 56 Two-tailed tests 66
characteristics 47
screening procedures 51 UK Food Labelling Regulations
sizes 31-2 10
trained 30, 33, 34, 65, 94, 106 Univariate analysis 64
untrained 30, 33
Test organization 81-2 Vector models 98
Textures 14, 29, 46 Ventilation 78
Training 56--7 Visual analysis 44, 63, 66, 70
discussions 57 Visual differences 42
replicate assessments 57
use of intensity scales 57 Wilcoxon test 71
word generation 57 Worksheets 81