Application of Sensory Science To Product Development Presentation

CMB CONSULTANTS
for Innovation Management Cell: 0825578951 http://www.ewklibrary.com
Presented at the Introductory course in New Product Development of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) (Department of Food Technology) in partnership with Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association (CCFRA) in the United Kingdom. Cape Town, 8 10 April 2008.
Application of sensory science to product development

The importance of sensory science to product development and where it fits in the product development cycle
Presenter: Dr C M (Karin) Blignaut (Pri.Sci.Nat.)
CMB Consultants for Innovation management @ e-Wise Knowledge Library
Sensory science is a fascinating discipline encompassing many aspects and issues. It is not the aim of this presentation to present all the issues, procedures, techniques, requirements and tests that form part of the Sensory Science body of knowledge. This presentation should rather be seen as a wide-ranging introduction to the subject from an industry (not research) point of view. In this introductory Product development course, it is important to understand what sensory science is, why it is important in product development and the type of tests that are basics to the discipline. All these issues will be addressed by answering the following main questions: Why sensory science? What is sensory evaluation / sensory science? Selecting the appropriate method / test What do the basic methods entail? A general overview of sensory science from the literature Why sensory science? Sensory science shows the way in product development.
2008 CMB Consultants for Innovation Management e-Wise Knowledge Library Website: http://www.ewklibrary.com e-mail: cmblignaut@ewklibrary.com
It is the light and map showing the way to hidden treasure in a dark mine. It is like Braille to the blind. Why is sensory evaluation important in product development? Many decisions must be reached during the development of a product. All these decisions will influence the final product attributes or characteristics. Sensory evaluation results can assist in reaching many of these decisions. Sensory evaluation techniques and -methods are mostly quantitative in design and can be used to test concepts and -prototypes, compare competitive products, determine the effects of ingredient substitution, -process changes and -shelf life on prototypes and existing products. Qualitative tests (such as focus groups and brainstorming) can also be used to generate descriptive terminology, determine the validity of questionnaires, determine what would make a product different or special, determine what would make consumers buy the product, and provide greater insight into evaluation results and consumer opinion.
Product developers probably value sensory evaluation most when the product brief is studied and implemented during the physical development of the product. It is during this phase especially, that sensory evaluation forms part of the primary research conducted by the product developer in conjunction with relevant literature research (secondary research). A product brief is similar to a blueprint that details the product to be developed. The reality is that food product developers use their knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, food science, processes, packaging and more to select ingredients and processes with which the required product will be created unfortunately this will not automatically imply that it is the desired product (either from a company- or consumer perspective).
In the product development process, it is during the early stages of development especially, that problems usually surface. Many questions can arise that should have been addressed using the appropriate sensory techniques or market research before the product brief was finalized -- for example: How viscous is a thick product? Which type of vanilla flavor would be the correct vanilla flavor? Does a less expensive starch deliver the same product characteristics as a more expensive starch? How red is the gold standard strawberry cooldrink? Should a bubblegum flavored product be pink or blue? If the ideal flavor imparts a less than ideal color to the product, should the flavor be substituted for a flavor that ensures an ideal color? Which attribute is therefore more important flavor or color, or are both equally important? What shape should oblong moondrop ice-cream have evenly oblong, teardrop shaped, flat, three dimensional? Will consumers reconstitute the product in their homes according to the instructions on the container? Are they all literate regarding the language used on the packaging? Do they interpret the instructions the way it was intended? Should the ginger snap biscuit have cracks on top or should it be smooth.rounded on top or flatwhich shade of brown from yellow-brown to dark brownhow hard, how brittle, will it be dipped in a beverage..how dunk-able should it be in coffee or tea? Most important answers to questions such as these are often ignored or not determined in the early stages of idea generation, concept testing and finalization of the brief. This apparently happens because these issues seem to form part of the grey area that is not addressed between marketing, market research and product development. It is only when things start to go wrong during development (when the perceived product and the achieved prototype is not the same), that gaps in communication between product development, packaging
development, marketing (marketing research), production, sales and distribution, can become obstacles to successful product launches. In many instances, sensory science can provide insightful answers and positive guidance. In other instances, it is clear that sensory scientists should be able to implement new methods (such as the Voice of the Customer) and market research techniques to prevent product development frustrations and failure. In many instances, such new methods also become useful tools in the hand of the marketer. Every characteristic in a product can be manipulated to ensure that the optimal result is achieved in the final product -- but what is the optimal result and how does one know that it has been achieved? How do we ensure that consumers will be delighted with our products? How do we ensure that we exceed their expectation? How do we ensure that they buy the product repeatedly? This is where sensory evaluation comes to the rescue with regard to the product formulation, packaging and more, providing unambiguous results and guidance. Through the use of correctly applied, analyzed and interpreted sensory test results it is possible to know whether there is a: perceivable difference between products or formulations (discrimination tests), and if so, whether there is a consumer preference for one formulation, product or packaging over another (through the application of affective or hedonic tests). It is also possible to distinguish between product descriptors and product discriminators (descriptive analysis), rate the value / importance of characteristics, determine the reliability and significance of results, and more.
All of this makes sensory evaluation an essential tool in all phases or stages of product development. In fact, according to Lawless and Heymann (1998), sensory evaluation is to product development what marketing research is to marketing .. with a slightly blurred- or grey area between the disciplines that requires ever more attention from an industry / corporate-reality perspective. It is to address this blurred area between product
development, sensory science, marketing research and marketing respectively, that the Person-product Interaction Protocol (PPI) was developed, optimized and implemented with great success in South Africa, since 1999. The product development process and sensory analysis: The product development process usually starts with idea generation. From there it progresses to concept testing and benchmarking of the concepts against existing products in the market. A product brief is completed by marketing and submitted to product development, before the physical development of the product to create a prototype(s), takes place. Prototype development is usually followed by further consumer tests, in-house tests (consumer field tests, home-use tests or in-home placements), factory trials, benchmarking of the physical product against existing products in the market, production and launch. Ideally, a post launch audit should also be conducted by the interdisciplinary team responsible for the launch of the product under the guidance of the marketer. If a product is not performing as envisioned six to twelve months after launch, sensory evaluation tests and procedures can be used to identify possible problems with the product and repeat the benchmarking against competitors. Ideally, products should not under-perform at this late stage. This is why it is important to make use of suitable or appropriate sensory evaluation techniques during each stage of the development process: 1. Idea generation Focus groups and brainstorming can be used (conducted either by sensory scientist, innovation specialist or market researcher) 2. Concept testing and product benchmarking Focus groups can be used (conducted either by sensory scientist, innovation specialist or market researcher) 3. Product brief In-house (internal) focus groups can be conducted with all the roleplayers to ensure all aspects are communicated. Consumer insight gained from the previous steps are most important 4. Prototype(s) development / product optimization, factory trials and product benchmarking a. Discrimination tests (difference tests) are used to determine whether consumers can detect the difference between products produced by substituting ingredients, changing processes, eliminating ingredients, reformulations, copying existing products. Preference tests are used to determine which products consumers prefer, find acceptable and/or like. It is useful to remember that a preference will probably not exist when a difference
between products cannot be detected except on a subconscious level (rarely). Everyone taking part in these tests are forced to make a choice and products are tested unbranded (except when it is a specified part of the test). It is important to note that the tests will only indicate which attributes or characteristics differ or are preferred in which product not the reason for the result. b. Descriptive tests are used to objectively analyze and describe selected products in detail using panelists that are trained specifically with regard to an specific product or product range. They should not be confused with product experts that usually grade products at factories they are not sensory analysts. c. Consumer use tests are conducted by the consumer in his/her home, to determine whether the products perform as envisaged during home-use. 5. Production and Launch When a product goes into full production, discrimination tests (difference tests) are conducted to ensure that the product is the same as those tested during development and factory trials. When this is confirmed, descriptive analysis can be conducted to ensure an objective description of the product that can become a part of the product specification. Over the life-cycle of the product, it will be sampled periodically at point of sale and re-evaluated in this manner to ensure that it conforms to the specification. 6. Post launch audit Using preference tests, the product is once again compared with competitive products. Descriptive analysis of products at point of sale can be conducted if deviance from the standard seems possible. At this stage, the future of the product is usually determined and the product specification finalized. Range extensions of successful products are usually already in development at this stage (making full use of information already available, to build a knowledge base about the product, possible range extensions and -related products from a sensory and development perspective). What is sensory evaluation / sensory science? Sensory science is an essential tool in product development. Product developers make use of many tools in the development of a product. These tools include for example, chemical tests, microbiological procedures and the use of physical equipment to determine elasticity, hardness, viscosity, color intensity and more. It is
unfortunately possible for food products to reflect similar measurements or results when these tools are applied individually, yet still result in different perceptions, acceptability or preferences on consumption of the product. This is where sensory evaluation becomes an invaluable tool. Users of products experience them holistically with their senses not with equipment or tests. Why is this important in the development of products? Surely, product developers only need to use objective tools such as the mentioned chemical-, physical- and microbiological tests to create the product they are scientists? No. In many instances, this is unfortunately a recipe for failure as many companies are still learning today. Without sensory evaluation (and sensory scientists), development efforts reflect the personal feelings, views and choices of the product developer, product development team, marketer(s) and/or top management. Without sensory evaluation results on which product development trade-offs and decisions can be based, product development successes will be few and development timelines very long. When decisions are ruled by personal judgments, preference or intuition (without facts), product developers are usually left at the mercy of decision-makers that insist on the constant reformulation of products with no end in sight. Does this mean that decisions cannot be made without the guidance of sensory evaluation? No. It only implies that the development and launch of new products depend on the manner in which decisions are reached and New product strategies are formulated. This is where sensory science reduces the risk of product failure. When consumer needs on the one hand and company requirements on the other, are not addressed in the development or optimization of a product, it is unlikely that the new product will be successful (if it is ever launched). Is there a difference between sensory science and sensory evaluation? Not really. Sensory science is the scientific discipline that encompasses the study of sensory evaluation procedures and -practices. Sensory science contributions are continuously improving and
adding to the body of knowledge that may or may not find its way into industry specifically the food and beverage industry. What is sensory evaluation and what is it not (in broad terms)? Sensory evaluation: Requires an interdisciplinary knowledge base. Is not the same as gastronomy (the experiencing- and study of fine food and eating habits), although consumers do experience food (influenced by situation, emotion, surroundings and more); Is not the same as the electronic nose; Procedures are not predictive models. They measure what is not what will be. It is a tool. Business predictive modeling can enhance sensory results and predictions. Sensory tests are comprised of techniques that reflect rigorous control over test protocols, data analysis and the interpretation of results; Makes use of the senses; Does not require that all the senses be used simultaneously (For example only sight is required to determine the preference of one color over another in kitchen utensils); Is the evaluation of products or materials by people (respondents / group members / panel members / panelists). Even some animals that can show a preference of aversion to a product may be targeted. (For example cats will not drink sour milk); Is conducted by people with/without the assistance of technology; Methods used mainly have one of two aims: 1. To eliminate for example personal prejudice, -preference and -acceptability to ensure an objective evaluation and differentiation between and description of product characteristics. Participants (panelists) are used as instruments and may be trained to perform analytical (laboratory) sensory evaluation procedures repeatedly. 2. To understand, isolate and determine subjective evaluation of product characteristics. The reactions of representative (target market) consumers (respondents) are determined through consumer (affective) sensory evaluation procedures. Tests can be categorized as:
o o o
Discrimination tests (difference tests) Descriptive analysis (of product attributes / characteristics), or Affective / hedonic testing (consumer tests)
Base the sensory attributes of any product on perception by the senses o o o o o o Appearance (eyes) external and internal appearance Smell (nose) multi-faceted, different notes Aroma (nose and mouth) combination of taste and smell Taste (tongue) sweet, sour, bitter, salt, (umami), after-taste Texture (eyes, mouth, fingers, lips, tongue) appearance, handling (tactile), chewing, swallowing Sound (ears) when handling, biting, chewing;
Takes into account that people are influenced by circumstances, emotions, observations, culture, peer pressure, influential groups or -individuals, politics, religion, and more;
Takes into account that each individual has specific internal value systems, objectives, motivations, impulses, feelings, beliefs, emotive responses, decisionmaking abilities, experiences, subconscious reactions, perceptions and more;
Can be conducted on FMCG products and more. For example -- Food, beverages, spirits, pet foods, ingredients, baby diapers, automobiles, textiles.. Is very specific and advanced in certain industries. Is used in (for example) in: o o o o Product development Quality assurance Setting of standards Other fields such as Behavioral studies, Physiology research and more
Sensory evaluation defined In 2000, Sensory evaluation was defined in the ASTM 253-04a reference as .a scientific discipline to evoke, measure, analyze and interpret reactions to stimuli perceived by the senses. Each aspect in this definition has a specific meaning, requirement or implication. To evoke reactions, requires specific, rigorous research methods. It also requires an understanding of physiology, anatomy, biochemistry, psychology, genetics (taste
blindness for phenyl thiocarbamate (bitter) / confusing tastes), the requirements for and influence of the test procedures, the test environment, and more. To measure reactions, requires measuring instruments that are qualitative or quantitative in nature to determine human reaction to one or more variables in a product or material. It requires knowledge regarding measuring instruments and their application, statistics, computer science and application, research methodologies / protocols, the effect of the test environment (conditions), requirements for tests, -test facilities and more. To analyze reactions, requires the application of the correct statistical software, test statistics, computer literacy, as well as knowledge of physiology, psychology, behavioral science and more to evaluate qualitative and quantitative results. To interpret reactions, requires knowledge of statistics, food science, computer software, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, gastronomy and more. It also requires the ability to write detailed reports on the one hand, and precise executive summaries on the other. It requires good presentation skills and the ability to advise courses of action based on the facts, without being prescriptive. Stimuli (in food this would be appearance, aroma, taste, texture, and sound) that requires an understanding of all the elements and interactions that cause product characteristics (biochemical, microbiological, physical (for example process-based such as mozzarella cheese), and more). It also requires knowledge of psychology (perception), physiology, nutrition, perceptual acuity and more. Other, non-sensory characteristics must also be taken into account, such as the feeling or sensation that a product evokes (For example: comfort food). Perceived through the senses, requires knowledge about physiology and psychology in general (for example the effect of satiety and emotion on perception). It also requires knowledge regarding the physiology of the eyes, ears, tongue (and mouth), fingers (skin) and nose. Selecting the appropriate method / test It is always very important to select the correct tool for the job. It is no different in sensory evaluation. It does not fall within the scope of this presentation to discuss all the possible
tests with their specific nuances and points of difference that make each of them suitable to specific situations. With the aim of this course in mind, it should be sufficient to summarize the selection of a test method by discussing three aspects, namely 1. Test aims 2. The sequence of events, and 3. The use of a decision tree. 1 test aims: A. Discriminative information B. Descriptive information, and C. Consumer information Discrimination tests (Analytical / laboratory tests) aim at the determination of differences between products / samples. Descriptive tests (Analytical / laboratory tests) focus on the description of products / samples. This information can be correlated with other forms of analysis such as chemical results etc. Consumer (Affective) tests focus on consumer preference, acceptance, liking etc. of one product over another. Ranking of one or more products or rating of products in a range (by consumers), can also be the aim. 2 The sequence of events Test aims
Sensory evaluation provides the following types of information that pertains to the different
It is important to follow the correct procedure to identify the required method or test. A sequence of events can be used as a guideline during any phase of the product development process to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming testing: 1. Perform a bench-top analysis. Conducted by the sensory scientist to determine the characteristics of the product, the necessity of testing and the test required. 2. Determine whether there is a discernable difference between products. If there is, determine whether the difference is significant through discriminative tests such as the paired comparison, triangle, duo trio or ranking tests. 3. If the difference between products or samples are significant, determine the intensity (how large the difference actually is) regarding relevant attributes, through magnitude estimation (seldom used), using an anchored ratio scale (intensity scale) with reference samples.
4. Determine which product is preferred and/or liked by consumers. Representative consumers evaluate the samples using paired preference tests, hedonic scaling or ranking. Other tests such as the Just-about-right scale (JAR) can also be used, but there is still some debate over the JAR scale specifically. 5. Obtain a fingerprint summarizing the characteristics of the sample or specific attributes and the relevant intensities. This requires trained panelists for Descriptive Analysis techniques such as Quantitive Descriptive Analysis, the Sensory Spectrum and Texture- or Flavour profiling. Panelists with limited training can be used for Free Choice Profiling. 3. The use of a decision tree The use of decisions trees (for example proposed by Lawless and Heymann, 1998:14) simplifies this task with regard to many aspects. It is based on a branched model, where the answer to a pertinent question leads to the identification of the most suitable test. Here are the most basic questions and answers: 1. Do you want to classify products, groups, respondents for example with regard to age, product use, etc? YES --- Use a rating scale NO --- Go to the next question 2. Do you want to determine how two or more than two products are ranked with regard to different attributes for example, how would you rank six products with regard to chocolate brown color if the product rated in first position (position 1) have the lightest chocolate brown color? YES --- Use an ordinal scale a forced choice ranking scale / questionnaire NO --- Go to the next question 3. Do you want to determine whether TWO products differ significantly from one another (with regard to specified attributes)? For example do you want to determine whether respondents detect a difference in sweetness between two samples? YES --- Go to question 3.1 NO --- Go to the question 4 3.1 Do you want to compare the one product with a control product or use either product as a control product to determine whether there is a discernable difference? YES --- Use a duo-trio test (constant reference) or balanced reference duo-trio test (both products used as control sample)
NO --- Go to question 3.2 3.2 Do you want to compare the two samples using only one sample of each product (a pair) to determine whether there is a discernable difference, even if this is a statistically weaker test (probability of guessing the correct decision (Pp) is one in two or 50%)? YES --- Use a paired comparison test difference test NO --- Go to question 3.3 3.3 Do you want to compare the two samples using more than one sample of each product to determine whether there is a discernable difference, to ensure a statistically stronger test (probability of guessing the correct decision (Pp) is one in three or 33%)? YES --- Use a triangle test NO --- Revisit question 3 again or Go to question 4 4. Do you want to determine the intensity of the difference between samples (specific attributes)? YES --- Use an anchored scale (intensity scale) with reference samples for magnitude estimation. NO --- Go to the question 5 5. Do you want to determine which of TWO products are preferred by consumers (with regard to specified attributes)? YES --- Use a paired comparison test -- preference test NO --- Go to the question 6 6. Do you want to determine how products are rated by consumers. (For example -how much consumers like ONE or MORE products with regards to different attributes? YES --- Use a category scale -- an hedonic scale (5 point, 7 point or 9 point scale -- numerical, verbal, pictorial (smiley) etc.) NO --- Go to the question 7 7. Do you want to determine whether a sensation or taste is discernable at a specific concentration or at which level it will be detectable? YES --- Use a sensitivity test (threshold test) aimed at detection, recognition, difference etc. NO --- Go to the question 8 8. Do you want to determine how the perceived intensity of an attribute changes over time? For example how does the flavor of bubblegum change when it is chewed for
a specified time, or how long does it take for the taste of the gum to become unacceptable? YES --- Use a time-intensity scaling (discrete or continuous tracking) NO --- Go to question 9 9. Do you want to describe the product sample for future reference YES --- Use a descriptive analysis technique for example Quantitive Descriptive Analysis (using a category scale- numerical, verbal, graphic (structured or unstructured line scale), etc.) NO --- Go back to question 1 What do the basic methods entail? With the aim of this course in mind, it should be sufficient to summarize only these few selected, standard sensory tests: Discrimination tests: Difference tests (paired comparison (difference), duo-trio, triangle) Consumer tests: Paired comparison test (preference) Hedonic scaling Test: Difference test -- Paired comparison test Basic Methodology: Presentation of samples (serving order 1):
Product / Sample 1
Product / Sample 2
Presentation of samples (serving order 2):
Product / Sample 2
Serving order randomized
Product / Sample 1
Product samples coded (3-digit code)
Scorecard / Questionnaire: Question asked: Circle the number of the product that is more.. Product samples coded (3-digit code) Serving order randomized
Data analysis at a glance: Determine the total number of correct judgments. Determine whether the perceived difference between the correct and incorrect judgments is significant: Roessler Tables Binomial distributions (Lawless & Heymann, pp. 130 131), power of the test (probability levels): =0,05 (significant difference) or = 0,01 (highly significant difference); Table for one-tailed paired difference test, or Adjusted Chi-square (X2) test Interpretation: If the number of required correct answers in the Roessler table at the specific probability level is less than the actual number of correct judgments, the difference between the samples is significant or highly significant (depending on the probability level). Reporting: Product . differed from product .. with regard to . at the .. probability level. Source: Roessler, E.B., Pangborne, R.M., Sidel, J.L. and Stone, H. 1978. Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in paired preference, paired-difference, duo-trio and triangle tests, in Journal of Food Science, 43:940-947.
Test: Difference test -- Duo trio test Basic Methodology: Presentation of samples (serving order 1):
Control sample (C) (Product / Sample 1 or 2)
Product / Sample 1
Product / Sample 2
Control sample (C) (Product / Sample 1 or 2)
Product / Sample 2
Product / Sample 1
Product samples coded (3-digit code) except for control sample (C)
Serving order randomized (excluding the control sample, which is always placed to the left) Scorecard / Questionnaire: Question asked: Circle the number of the sample that is similar to the control sample with regard to .. Product samples coded (3-digit code) except for control sample (C) Serving order randomized (excluding the control sample which is always placed to the left) A good method to test the effect of replacement ingredients in a formulation. Data analysis at a glance: Determine the total the number of correct judgments. Determine whether the perceived difference between correct and incorrect judgments is significant: Roessler Tables Binomial distributions (Lawless & Heymann, pp. 130 131), power of the test (probability levels): =0,05 (significant difference) or = 0,01 (highly significant difference); Table for one-tailed duo-trio test (same table as the one-tailed paired difference test), or Adjusted Chi-square (X2) test Interpretation: If the number of required correct answers in the Roessler table at the specific probability level is less than the actual number of correct judgments, the difference between the samples is significant or highly significant (depending on the probability level). Reporting: Product . differed from product .. with regard to . at the .. probability level.
Test: Difference test -- Triangle test Basic Methodology: Presentation of samples (possible serving orders sample sets e.g.): Set 1
Product / Sample 1
Product / Sample 1
Product / Sample 2
Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6
Product / Sample 2 Product / Sample 2 Product / Sample 1 Product / Sample 2 Product / Sample 1
Product samples coded (3-digit code) Serving order randomized over sample sets Scorecard / Questionnaire: Question asked: Circle the number of the sample that differs from the other samples in the set with regard to .. Product samples coded (3-digit code) Serving order randomized over sample sets Data analysis at a glance: Determine the total number of correct judgments. Determine whether the perceived difference between correct and incorrect judgments is significant: Roessler Tables Binomial distributions (Lawless & Heymann, pp. 130 131), power of the test (probability levels): =0,05 (significant difference) or = 0,01 (highly significant difference); Table for one-tailed triangle test, or Adjusted Chi-square (X2) test Interpretation: If the number of required correct answers in the Roessler table at the specific probability level is less than the actual number of correct judgments, the difference between the samples is significant or highly significant (depending on the probability level).
Reporting: Product . differed from product .. with regard to . at the .. probability level.
Test: Preference test Paired preference Basic Methodology: Presentation of samples (serving order 1):
Product / Sample 1
Product / Sample 2
Product / Sample 2
Product / Sample 1
Product samples coded (3-digit code) Serving order randomized Scorecard / Questionnaire: Question asked: Circle the number of the product that is preferred with regard to.. Product samples coded (3-digit code) Serving order randomized Data analysis at a glance: Determine the total number of correct judgments. Determine whether the perceived difference between correct and incorrect judgments is significant: Roessler Tables Binomial distributions (Lawless & Heymann, pp. 130 131), power of the test (probability levels): =0,05 (significant difference) or = 0,01 (highly significant difference); Table for two-tailed (consumer evaluations) paired preference test, or Adjusted Chi-square (X2) test Interpretation: If the number of required correct answers in the Roessler table at the specific probability level is less than the actual number of correct judgments, the difference between the samples is significant or highly significant (depending on the probability level). Reporting: Product . differed from product .. with regard to . at the .. probability level. Test: Hedonic scaling Basic Methodology: Presentation of samples (9-point liking scale):
Product / Sample number
Like extremely
Like very much
Like moderately
Like slightly
Neither like nor dislike
Like slightly
Like moderately
Like very much
Like extremely
598 253 109 Product samples coded (3-digit code) One or more sample Serving order randomized Scorecard / Questionnaire: Question asked: Indicate with an X in the appropriate box, your feeling about the . of each product Product samples coded (3-digit code) Serving order randomized Data analysis at a glance: Descriptive statistics specifically Frequency analysis Inferential statistics (to determine whether the differences in the data is significant) Number of products in evaluation: 2 1-Way ANOVA, or Students t-test -- paired t-test if the same respondents evaluated both samples, or -- independent t-test is the samples were evaluated by different respondents Number of products in evaluation: more than two 2-Way ANOVA (F-values) 3-Way ANOVA or MANOVA (F-values) with Post hoc tests, such as Bonferroni, LSD, Tukeys tests etc. to determine which products differ Interpretation: If the probability of the calculated F-value (as calculated by statistical software) is higher than 0.05, the products do not differ significantly.
If the calculation is performed by hand, the value in the t-table at the required probability level is noted. If the calculated value is larger than the tabled value, the difference is significant. Reporting: There was a significant liking/. for the of product . at the .. probability level. What about more advanced techniques? The value of more advance techniques such as Descriptive analysis, lies in the detailed output received and the possibility of extensive data mining. These techniques do however require specific knowledge and experience. There is currently a special focus on perceptual mapping, which makes it possible to identify gaps between product characteristics which may indicate possible new products. These efforts should however be undertaken with care to ensure that the expectation regarding the results of such expensive, time intensive research is realistic and agreed between all research partners. The output from well-known procedures such as Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) or Generic QDA and its graphics (star plots / radar plots) have much to contribute to the understanding and verbalization of consumer preference in numerous ways. Data analysis for these advanced methods requires an applied knowledge of statistics and relevant software from the sensory scientist. The advantage of these methods are however, that they can be combined and correlated with research results from other sources on the same products to present product developers, researchers and companies alike with a magnificent opportunity to mine larger data sets. In conclusion It should be noted that the food industry specifically do not always require or desire long timeframe, expensive research. In a fast changing market, time to market, cost effective research and results that will ensure that more than the current ~40 % of new products actually succeed in the marketplace, is a reality in business. This is a special challenge to the product developer and marketer. It also stays a particular challenge for the sensory scientist that should always strive towards more applicable, tailor-made results, conclusions and action plans that can ensure a competitive advantage to companies in the shorter and longer term.
The success of sensory evaluation does not only lie in the application of individual tests and techniques. The future may find us combining sensory principles with much from other disciplines to ensure that we stay abreast of client requirements and -expectations. In the final analysis, success in product development and sensory evaluation is determined by speed to market and success in the marketplace. The most advanced procedures and methodologies only mean something when it results in the predicted sales and envisioned product success of new or optimized products. That is the business reality. It is in this regard that protocols such as the Person-product interaction protocol (PPI) that makes optimal use of the research opportunity, will probably find an even greater application in product development and marketing in conjunction with standard sensory evaluation tests and procedures.
A general overview of sensory science from the literature

e-Manuals on Product development and innovation by Dr C M Blignaut, managing consultant at CMB Consultants for Innovation Management, can be purchased on the eWise Knowledge Library website (http://www.ewklibrary.com) as direct downloads or on CD, or contact us at info@ewklibrary.com for special requirements (for example --prescribed textbooks). Sensory Evaluation of Food principles and practices, by Lawless and Heymann (1998) is an excellent reference that should be noted by the sensory evaluation novice. Note: The following sources may contain information that could prove to be interesting for various reasons. It is not intended as a comprehensive list. Some of the source is included for the sake of interest. A selection of Scientific research source, Websites and Consumer publications are quoted. Inclusion or exclusion from this source list does not infer any level of importance.
Adams, J.P. (1985). Statistical analysis in a food science and engineering laboratory course, in Food Technology. 42 (4): 103-106, 118. Aishima, T., and Nakai, S. (1991). Chemometrics in flavor research, in Food Reviews International. 7 (1): 33-101. Almeida-Dominguez, N.G., et.al., (1990). Formulation of corn-based snacks with high nutritive value: biological and sensory evaluation, in Journal of Food Science. 55 (1): 228-231. Amerine, M.A., Pangborne,R.M.and Roesler,E.B. (1965). Principles of Sensory Evaluation of food, Academic Press, New York. Assael, H. (1992). Consumer behaviour and marketing action, fourth edition. PWS-Kent Publishing Company. Boston.
ASTM Manuals (for example on Sensory Testing Methods), available from the American Society for Testing Materials. Philadelphia. ASTM 253-04a, Standard terminology Relating to sensory evaluation of materials and products. 2002. The American Society for Testing Materials. Philadelphia. ASTM-E18 (in press). WK371 New guide for use, benefits and risks associated with just about right scales in sensory evaluation testing with consumers (E-18.04.26 wk 371) . Committee E18 on Sensory Evaluation. Staff Manage: Scott Orthey (at this moment this document is not published). Baker, R.C., Hahn, P.W., and Robbins, K.R. (1988). Fundamentals of New Food Product Development, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Barker, L.M. (1982). The psychobiology of human food selection, AVI Publishing Co. Inc., Westport. Beal A.D. and Mottram, D.S. (1993). An evaluation of the aroma characteristics of malted barley by free-choice profiling, in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 61 (1): 1722. Beckley, J.P. and Kroll, D. J. (1996). Searching for sensory research excellence, in Food Technology.50 (3): 61-63. Bcue-Bertaut, M.,et.al., 2008. Rating of products through scores and free-text assertions: Comparing and combining both, in Food Quality and Preference, 19 (1): 122-134. Blignaut, C.M. [ ]. Innovate It! Blog at http://innovatit.blogspot.com, and Action It! Blog at http://actionit.blogspot.com Blignaut, C.M. [ ]. The Person-product Interaction Protocol, at e-Wise Knowledge Librarys CMB Consultants presentation and in the Reading Room (http://www.ewklibrary.com) Blignaut, C.M. (1998). The description of Dairy products by multivariate analysis of Sensory and Analytical parameters using South African cheddar cheese. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Free State. Bloemfontein. Blignaut, C.M. (2005). Developing a new product (when you do not know where to start). E-Wise Knowledge Library. Northriding. (http://www.ewklibrary.com) Blignaut, C.M. (2005). Developing products that sell getting the job done. E-Wise Knowledge Library. Northriding. (http://www.ewklibrary.com) Boles, J.A., and Parrish, F.C. (1990). Sensory and chemical characteristics of precooked microwavereheatable pork roasts, in Journal of Food Science. 55 (3): 618-620. Bone, B. [ ].The importance of consumer language in developing product concepts, in Food Technology. 41 (11): 58, 60, 86. Boustani, P., and Mitchell, V-W. 1990. Cereal bars: a perceptual, chemical and sensory analysis, in British Food Journal. 92 (5): 17-22. Bower, J.A., Saadat M.A., & Whitten, C. (2003). Effect of liking, information and consumer characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay more for a fat spread with a proven health benefit, in Food Quality and Preference (14): 65-74. Brinberg, D., Axelson, M.L., & Price, S. (2000). Changing food knowledge, food choice, and dietary fiber consumption by using tailored messages. Appetite 35, 35-43. British Standard Institution. (1980). Methods for sensory analysis of food. Part 1. Introduction and general guide to methodology, BS 5929:Part1:1980. 2008 CMB Consultants for Innovation Management e-Wise Knowledge Library Website: http://www.ewklibrary.com e-mail: cmblignaut@ewklibrary.com
F. Brochet and D. Dubourdieu (2001). Wine descriptive language supports cognitive specificity of chemical senses, Brain and Language 77:187196. Buono, M.A., et.al., (1990). Soymilk yogurt: sensory and chemical measurements. Journal of Food Science. 55 (2): 528-531. Business database sources, at http://www.library.cornell.edu/johnson/library/Checklists/databases_sub.html Cardello, A.V. 1994. Food, health, and sensory evaluation in the new age. Cereal Foods World. 39 (11): 877-879. Cardello, A.V. (1994). Sensory-instrumental research. Cereal Foods World. 39 (8): 567-569. Carter, K., and Riskey, D. (1990). The roles of sensory research and marketing research in bringing a product to market. Food Technology. 44 (11): 160, 162. CCFRA. Introduction to sensory analysis Sue Purcell Event Director. www.campden.co.uk/training/ss1.htm CCFRA. On site/tailored sensory training service. Sue Purcell Event Director. www.campden.co.uk/training/ss4.htm Chambers, E and Baker Wolf, M. (1996). Sensory testing methods (2nd ed.), ASTM, West Conshohocken. Chambers, E. (1990). Sensory analysis -- dynamic research for todays products. Food Technology. 44 (1): 92-94. Chambers, E., and Robel, (1993). Sensory characteristics of selected species of freshwater fish in retail distribution. Journal of Food Science. 58 (3): 508-512, 561. Costell, E. et al. (1995). Texture of sweet orange gels by free-choice profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies. 10: 163-179. Courcoux, P.H. and Chavanne, P.C. (2001). Preference mapping using a latent class vector model, in Food Quality and Preference 12: 369372. Cracknell, H.L. and Nobis, G. (1985). Practical professional gastronomy Daillant, B. and Issanchou, S., (1991). Most preferred level of sugar: rapid measure and consumption test, in Journal of Sensory Studies 6: 131144 Dairou, V. and Sieffermann, J-M. (2002). A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile, in Journal of Food Science 67 (2): 826834. Delarue, J. and Sieffermann, J.-M. (2004). Sensory mapping using flash profile comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products, in Food Quality and Preference 15 (4): 383392. de Kock, H.L., et.al. Six Steps to Sensory Evaluation: A practical tool to apply Sensory Science, at http://www.esn-network.com/de-kock-pretoria.html Deliza, R. et.al. (2005). Application of high pressure technology in the fruit juice processing: benefits perceived by consumers, in Journal of Food Engineering, 67(1-2): 241-246. Dijksterhuis, G., and Van den Broek, E. (1995). Matching the shape of time-intensity curves. Journal of Sensory Studies. 10: 149-161.
Dijksterhuis, G.,et.al. (2007). A new sensory vocabulary for crisp and crunchy dry model foods in Food Quality and Preference, 18 (1): 37-50. Dovey, T.M., et.al. (2008). Food neophobia and picky/fussy eating in children: A review in Appetite, 50 (2-3): 181-193. Drewnowski, A., (1997). Taste preferences and food intake, in Annual Reviews in Nutrition 17: 237 253. Du Plessis, P.J. and Rousseau, G.G. (1999). Buyer behaviour a multi-cultural approach. Second edition. International Thompson Publishing. Halfway House. Earle, M. and Earle, R. eds., 2007. Case studies in food product development. Woodhead Publishing, Limited, Cambridge. Earle, M., Earle, R. and Anderson, A. 2001. Food product development: Maximising success, Woodhead Publishing, Limited, Cambridge. Ennis, D.M. (1990). Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation, in Food Technology. 44 (4): 114,116-117. Epler, S., et.al. (1998). Hedonic scales are better predictor than just about right scales of optimal sweetness in lemonade, in Journal of Sensory Studies 13: 191197. European Sensory Network, at http://www.esn-network.com/home2.html?&no_cache=1 Flckiger, E. (1995). Sensory assessment of packaging materials and packages by the triangle test : Odor and taste Appendix A in, IDF Bulletin. 1995. Technical guide for the packaging of milk and milk products, third ed., Bulletin No 300/1995, IDF, Brussels. Fondroy, E.B.,et.al. (1989). Physical and sensory evaluation of lean white cakes containing substituted fluffy sellulose. Cereal Chemistry. 60 (4): 402-404. Food Business Review Homepage, at http://www.food-business-review.com/home.asp Food Business Review: Ice cream: top flavors in new products, at http://www.food-businessreview.com/article_researchwire.asp?guid=D4AD4E5D-4CC6-46FB-BCA1-9810E9ECC604 Frewer, L and van Trijp, H. eds.. (2006). Understanding consumers of food products, Woodhead Publishing, Limited, Cambridge. Fuller, G.W. (1994). New Food Product development from concept to marketplace. CRC Press. Boca Raton. Gacula, M.C., and Washam, R.W. (1986). Scaling word anchors for measuring off-flavor, in Journal of Food Quality. 9: 57-65. Geel, L. et.al. (2005). Relating consumer preferences to sensory attributes of instant coffee, in Food Quality and Preference 16 (3): 237-244. Givaudan-Roure. (1992). Sensory evaluation of flavours, Givaudan-Roure. Dbendorf. Goldman, A. (1994). Gaining the competitive edge : sensory science in the marketplace. Cereal Foods World. 39 (11): 822-825 Graf, E., and Saguy, I S. eds. (1991). Food product development from concept to the marketplace, Van Nostrand Reinholt, New York.
Grant, I.R., and Patterson, M.F. (1991). Effect of irradiation and modified atmosphere packaging on the microbiological and sensory quality of pork stored at refrigerator temperatures, in International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 26: 507-519. Grunert, K.G. (2003). Purchase and consumption: the interdisciplinary nature of analysing food choice, in Food Quality and Preference 14, 39-40. Guichard, E., Schlich, P., and Issanchou, S. (1990). Comparison of apricot aroma : correlations between sensory and instrumental data, in Journal of Food Science. 55 (3): 735-738. Guinard, J-X., et.al. (2001). Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus knowledge of brand and price, in Food Quality and Preference 12: 243255. Guinard, J-X., et.al. (1985). Computerized procedure for time-intensity sensory measurements, in Journal of Food Science. 50: 543, 544, 546. Halliday, J.H, and MacFie, H.J.H. (1990). Assessment of the sensory properties of food, in Nutrition Reviews. 48 (2): 87-93. Hashisaka, A.E., et.al. (1990). Sensory analysis of dairy products irradiated with cobalt-60 at -78 oC, in Journal of Food Science. 55 (2): 404-408, 412. Heath, H.B. (1981). Source book of flavors, AVI Publishing Company, Westport. Hetherington, M., et.al. (1989). The time course of sensory-specific satiety. Appetite 12: 5768 Heymann, H. (1994). A comparison of free-choice profiling and multidimentional scaling of vanilla samples, Journal of Sensory Studies 9: 445453. Heymann, H. (1990). Sensory evaluation of food and beverage products short course, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch. Heymann, H. (1995). Advanced sensory analysis techniques : descriptive analyses - a three day advanced sensory analysis workshop, Irene Animal Production Institute, Meat Industry Centre, Irene. Heymann, H. (1995). Sensory evaluation in the food and beverage industry : Sensory evaluation of food and beverage products -- a two-day introductory sensory evaluation workshop, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch. Hodgins, D., and Simmonds, D. (1995). Sensory technology for flavor analysis. Cereal Foods World. 40 (4): 186-191. Hollingsworth, P. (1996). sensory testing and the language of the consumer. Food Technology February 1996: 65-69. Holm, E.T., et.al. (1994). Sensory evaluation as a tool in breeding potatoes for french fries and flakes, in American Potato Journal. 71: 1-13. Holt, S.D., et.al., (1992). Formulation, evaluation and optimization of Tortillas containing wheat, cowpea and peanut flours using mixture response surface methodology, in Journal of Food Science. 57 (1): 121-127. IFT Sensory Evaluation Division, (1981). Sensory Evaluation guide for testing food and beverage products. Food Technology. 35(11): 50-59. Jack, F.R., et.al.,(1995). Perceived texture: direct and indirect methods for use in product development, in International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 30: 1-12.
Jaeger, S.R., et.al. (2003). In search of the ideal pear (pyrus spp.): results of a multidisciplinary exploration, in Journal of Food Science 68:11081117. Jaeger, S.R., et.al. (2003). Consumer-driven product development in the kiwifruit industry, in Food Quality and Preference 14:187198. Joseph, J. (2007). A matter of taste, in Discovery Health Magazine, http://lifestyle.iafrica.com/food/features/701220.htm Kamel, B.S., and Hoover, R. (1992). Production of bread using sodium stearol lactylate as a replacement for shortning, in Food Research International. 25: 285-288. Karol, R. and Nelson, B. (2007). New product development for dummies. Wiley Publishing. Inc. Indianapolis. Kimmel, S.A., et.al. (1994). Sensory testing with young children, in Food Technology, March 1994 :9299. Larmond, E. (1994). Is sensory evaluation a science? Cereal Foods World. 39(11): 804-806,808. Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Lawless, H.T. (1989). Logarithmic transformation of magnitude estimation data and comparisons of scaling methods, in Journal of Sensory Studies. 4 (2): 75-86. Lawless, H.T. (1994). Getting results you can trust from sensory evaluation, in Cereal Foods World. 39 (11): 809-814. Lee, K. (1989). Food neophobia : major causes and treatments. Food Technology, 43(12): 62-73. Lee, W.E. (1989). Single-point versus time-intensity sensory measurements: an informational entropy analysis, in Journal of Sensory Studies. 4 (1): 19-30. Logue, A. W. (1986). The psychology of eating and drinking. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Lundahl, D.L. (2006). A holistic approach to product development, in Food Technology 60 (11): 3033. Lundahl, D.S. (1992). Comparing time-intensity t o category scales in sensory evaluation, in Food Technology. 46 (11): 98-103. Lynch, N.M. (1987). In search of the salty taste, in Food Technology. 41 (11): 82-83, 85-86. Lyon, D.H. et.al. (1992). Guidelines for sensory analysis in food product development and quality control. Chapman and Hall. London. MacFie, H.J.H. ed., (2007). Consumer-led food product development, Woodhead Publishing, Limited, Cambridge. MacFie, H.J.H. (1990). Assessment of sensory properties of food, in Nutrition Reviews. 48(2): 87-93. MacFie H.J.H. and Thompson, D.M.H. eds, (1994). Measurements of food preferences. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow. MacFie, H.J.H., and Hedderley, D. (1993). Current practice in relating sensory perception to instrumental measurements, in Food Quality and Preference. 4: 41-49. McBride, R.L., and MacFie, H.J.H. eds. (1990). Psychological basis of sensory evaluation, Elsevier Science Publishers, London. 2008 CMB Consultants for Innovation Management e-Wise Knowledge Library Website: http://www.ewklibrary.com e-mail: cmblignaut@ewklibrary.com
Marlow, P. (1987). Qualitative research as a tool for product development, in Food Technology November 1987: 74-78. McDermott, B.J. (1990). Identifying consumers and consumer test subjects, in Food Technology. 44 (11): 154, 156, 158. Meilgaard, M., et.al. (1999). Sensory evaluation techniques (3rd ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton. Meilgaard, M.C., and Muller, J.E. (1987). Progress in descriptive analysis of beer and brewing products. MBAA Technical Quaterly. 24: 79-85. Moskowitz, H.R. (1981). Sensory intensity vs. hedonic functions: Classical psychophysical approaches, in Journal of Food Quality 5: 109138. Moskowitz, H.R. (2001). Sensory directionals for pizza: A deeper analysis, in Journal of Sensory Studies 16: 583600. Moskowitz, H.R. (1983). Product testing and sensory evaluation of foods : marketing and R & D approaches, Food and Nutrition Press Inc., Westport. Moskowitz, H.R. (1985). New directions for product testing and sensory analysis of foods, Food and Nutrition Press, Westport. Moskowitz, H.R., (1996). Experts versus consumers : a comparrison, in Journal of Sensory Studies. 11 (1996): 19-37. Murray, J.M. et.al. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and future, in Food Research International 34: 461471. OMahony, M. (1995). Sensory measurement in food science : fitting methods to goals, in Food Technology. 49 (4): 72-82. Oakes, M.E., & Slotterback, C.S. (2002). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Characteristics used by young, middle-aged, and older men and women, dieters and non-dieters to judge healthfulness of foods, in Appetite 38, 91-97. Pangborne Sensory Science Symposium. 2007 at http://www.pangborn2007.com/program.htm Piggott, J.R. ed., 1988. Sensory Analysis of Foods, Elsevier Applied Science, London. Popper, R., et.al. (2004). The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings, in Food Quality and Preference 15: 853858 Porretta, S. (1993). Composition of commercial tomato pulp and its relationship to some typical sensory characteristics, in Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 6: 185-194. Potter, D.V. 1989. FROM EXPERIENCE The Customer's Eye View of Innovation Journal of Product Innovation Management 6 (1) , 3542. Prell, P.A., and Sawyer, F.M. (1988). Flavor profiles of 17 species of North American fish. Journal of Food Science. 53 (4): 1036-1042. Shepherd, R. (1990). Nutritional and sensory beliefs in food choice, in British Food Journal, 92(3): 216. Shepherd, R., and Sparks, P. 1994. Modeling food choices. MacFie, H.J.H., and Thomson, D.M.H. eds. 1994. Measurement of food preferences, Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
Sidel, J.L., and Stone, H. (1993). The role of sensory evaluation in the food industry, in Food Quality and preference. 4 (1993): 65-73. Stein, L.J., et.al. (2003). Effects of repeated exposure and health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptance of a bitter beverage, in Appetite 40, 119-129. Stone, H. and Sidel, J. (1993). Sensory evaluation practices, Academic Press, New York. Torline, P.A. (1985). Beer quality assessment using multi-variant analyses of both sensory and analytical parameters. MBAA Technical Quaterly. 22: 13-18. van Kleef, E., et.al., (2006). Internal versus external preference analysis: An exploratory study on enduser evaluation, in Food Quality and Preference 17: 387399. van Trijp, H.C.M., et.al.,. (2007). The quest for the ideal product: comparing different methods and approaches at http://www.pangborn2007.com/delegates/pdfs/wed_vantrijp.pdf Wiet, S.G. et.al. (1993). Fat concentration affects sweetness and sensory profiles of sucrose, sucralose, and aspartame, in Journal of Food Science. 58 (3): 599-602, 666. Zink, L. (2007). Sensory Science & Market research a marraige of the mind, heart and soul at http://www.pangborn2007.com/delegates/pdfs/wed_zink.pdf

Application of Sensory Science To Product Development Presentation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Application of Sensory Science To Product Development Presentation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CMB CONSULTANTS

for Innovation Management Cell: 0825578951 http://www.ewklibrary.com

Application of sensory science to product development

Presentation of samples (serving order 2):

Product samples coded (3-digit code)

Control sample (C) (Product / Sample 1 or 2)

Presentation of samples (serving order 2):

Control sample (C) (Product / Sample 1 or 2)

Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6

Presentation of samples (serving order 2):

Product / Sample number

Like very much

Neither like nor dislike

Like very much

A general overview of sensory science from the literature

S-ar putea să vă placă și