Contribución de tres modelos en pruebas sensoriales de diferencia
Contribution of three models in sensory test of difference
Resumen
El empleo de los métodos para evaluar diferencias o agrado está muy extendido para una variedad de pruebas aparentemente sencillas de evaluación sensorial, ya sea empleando catadores o consumidores; sin embargo, se deben considerar las tendencias más actuales en este ámbito, es por ello que el artículo ofrece una introducción para el modelo Thurstoniano, así como su aplicación en las pruebas sensoriales. El tratamiento teórico abordado explica las diferencias detectadas en la ejecución de diversos protocolos, incluyendo las pruebas de diferencias, donde un pequeño cambio en las instrucciones dadas al juez puede alterar la proporción de respuestas correctas. Se comenta sobre el uso de la estadística binomial para el análisis de pruebas de diferencia, sus limitaciones y el efecto de la estrategia cognitiva adoptada por el catador durante la prueba; se analiza el modelo Thurstoniano en la respuesta de los evaluadores y la Teoría de Detección de Señales, además de abordar aspectos relacionados con el Análisis Secuencial de la Sensitividad, desarrollado como una evolución crítica al modelo Thurstoniano.
Abstract
The use of methods to evaluate differences or liking is very widespread for a variety of apparently simple sensory evaluation tests, either trained judges or consumers are being used. However, the most current tendencies in this area should be considered. That is why this article shows an introduction to the Thurstonian model as well as its application on sensorial tests. The discussed theoretical treatment explains the detected differences in the execution of diverse protocols, which include the test of differences, where a small change in the instructions given to the judges could alter the proportion of right answers. A comment is made about the use of the binominal statistics for the analysis of tests of difference, its limitations and the effect of adopted cognitive strategy by the testers during the test. The Thurstonian model in the judges’ answers and the Signal Detection Theory are also analyzed. Moreover, some aspects related to Sequential Sensitivity Analysis, developed as a critical evolution of the Thurstonian model, are also uncovered.
Keywords: Sensory Evaluation, Thurstonian Model, Signal Detection Theory.
Citas
Alfaro, H., M. O’Mahony & O. Angulo. 2005. Paired preferences test: d´ values from Mexican consumer with various response options. Journal of Sensory Studies 20(3): 275-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00018.x
American society for testing and materials. 2003. ASTM: E 2262-03. Standard Practices for Estimating Thurstonian Discriminal Distances. ASTM.
Angulo, O. & M. O’Mahony. 2005. The paired preference test and the “No preference”
of the effects of variance on thurstonian models of scaling. Food Quality and Preference 16(5): 425-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.08.002
Angulo, O. & M O’Mahony. 2009a. Las pruebas de preferencia en alimentos son mas complejas de lo imaginado. Interciencia 34(3):177-181. https://tinyurl.com/3mrnxfy6
Angulo, O. & M O’Mahony. 2009b. Aplicación del modelo de Thurstone a las pruebas sensoriales de diferencia. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutricion 59(4): 349-357. http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?pid=S0004-06222009000400001&script=sci_abstract
Beidler, L.1954. A theory of taste stimulation. Journal of General Physiology 38(2): 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1085%2Fjgp.38.2.133
Bi, J. & D.M. Ennis. 2001. Statistical models for the «A» – «Not A» method. Journal Sensory Studies 16(2): 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00297.x
Bi, J., D.M. Ennis & M. O´Mahony. 1997. How to estimate and use the variance of d´ from difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 12(2):87-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1997.tb00055.x
Elliot, P. 1964. Tables de d´. En Signal detection and recognition by human observers-Contemporary Readings. John Wiley & Sons Inc. ISBN 0471839701, 9780471839705.
Ennis, D. M. & F. G. Ashby. 1993. The relative sensitivities of same- different and identification models to perceptual dependence. Psychometrika 58(2):257-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294576
Ennis, D. M. & K. Mullen. 1985. The effect of dimensionality on results from the triangular method. Chemical Senses 10(4): 605- 608. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/10.4.605
Ennis, D. M. & K. Mullen. 1986a. A multivariate model for discrimination methods. Journal Mathematical Psychology 30(2):206-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(86)90014-3
Ennis, D. M. & K. Mullen. 1986b. Theoretical aspects of sensory discrimination. Chemical Senses 11(4):513-522. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/11.4.513
Ennis, D. M. & K. Mullen. 1992. Probabilistic psychophysics with noisy stimuli. Mathematical Science 23(2):221-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896(92)90018-Z
Ennis, D. M. 1992. Modeling similarity and identification when there are momentary fluctuations psychological magnitudes. En Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition (pp. 279-298). Psychology Press. ISBN 080580577X, 9780805805772.
Ennis, D. M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal Sensory Studies 8(4):353-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1993.tb00225.x
Ennis, J. M., D. M. Ennis, D. Yip & M. O’Mahony. 1998. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 51(2):205-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1998.tb00677.x
Fechner, G. 1860. Element der Psychophysik. Breitkopf und Hartel.
Frijters, J. E. R. 1979. The paradox of discriminatory nondisciminators resolved. Chemical Senses and Flavor 4: 355-58.
Frijters, J. E.R., A. Kooistra & P. F.G. Vereijken. 1980. Tables of d´ for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Perception Psychology 27(2):176-178. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03204306
Green, D. M. & J. A. Swets.1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Wiley. ISBN 0471324205, 9780471324201.
Hacker, M. & R. Ratcliff. 1979. Revised table of d´ for M- alternative forced choice. Perception & Psychophysics 26:168- 170.
Kim, H. J., K. O. Kim, S. Y. Jeon, J. M. Kim & M. O’Mahony. 2006. Thurstonian models and variance II: Experimental confirmation of the effects of variance on thurstonian models of scaling.
Journal of Sensory Studies 21(5):465-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00079.x
Kim, K. O. & M O’Mahony. 1998. A new approach to category scales of intensity I. Traditional versus rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies 13(3): 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00086.x
MacMillan, N. A. & C. D. Creelman. 2004. Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. 2nd Ed. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781410611147. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611147
Masuoka, S., D. Hatjopoulos & M. O’Mahony. 1995. Beer bitterness detection: testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 10(3): 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1995.tb00021.x
Meilgaard, M. C., B. T. Carr & G. V. Civille. 2007. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 4th Ed. CRC Press. ISBN 0849338395, 9780849338397.
Noreen, D.1981. Optimal decision rules for some common psychophysical paradigms. En Mathematical psychology and psychophysiology (Proceedings of the symposium in applied mathematics of the American Mathematical Society and the Society for Industrial Applied Mathematics) (SIAM-AMS Proceedings, 13:237-279). American Mathematical Society. ISBN 9780898591828.
O’Mahony, M., S. Masuoka & R. Ishii. 1994.A theoretical note on difference tests: models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies 9(3): 247-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1994.tb00246.x
O’Mahony, M. & N. Odbert. 1985. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures Sequential Sensitivity Analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. Journal of Food Science 50(4):1055-1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1985.tb13011.x
O’Mahony, M. & L. R. Goldstein. 1986. Effectiveness of sensory difference tests: Sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. Journal of Food Science 51(6): 1550-1553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1986.tb13857.x
O’Mahony, M. 1992. Understanding discrimination tests: A user- friendly treatment of response bias, rating and ranking R- Index tests and their relationship to signal detection. Journal of Sensory Studies 7(1):1-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1992.tb00519.x
Rousseau, B. 2001. The b-Strategy: an Alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 16(3): 301-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00303.x
Rousseau, B. & M. O’Mahony. 1997. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. Journal of Sensory Studies 12(2):127-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1997.tb00057.x
Rousseau, B. & D. Ennis. 2002. The multiple dual-pair method. Perception & Psychophysics 64:1008-1014. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196803
Stevens, S. S. 1957. On the psychophysics law. Psychological Review 64(3): 153-181.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0046162
Thurstone, L.L. 1927a. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34(4): 278-286. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0070288
Thurstone, L.L. 1927b. Psychophysical analysis. The American Journal of Psychology 38:368-389. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1415006
Thurstone, L. L. 1927c. Three psychophysical laws. Psychological Review 34(6): 424-432. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0073028
Ura, S. 1960. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Reports of Statistical Application Research. Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers 7: 107-119.
Vié, A. & M. O’Mahony. 1989. Triangular difference testing: Refinement of sequential analysis for predictions for individual triads. Journal of Sensory Studies 4(2):87-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1989.tb00460.x
Derechos de autor 2020 TECNOCIENCIA Chihuahua
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0.
