Las pruebas de diferencia en el análisis sensorial de los alimentos
Difference tests in the sensorial analysis of food
Resumen
La evaluación sensorial de alimentos es de suma importancia en la investigación y el desarrollo de alimentos. El tipo de análisis sensorial dependerá del tipo de información requerida, y en este sentido, el presente artículo provee un panorama de las estrategias utilizadas en pruebas de diferencia, que se utilizan cuando se desea conocer si dos alimentos son perceptiblemente distintos. Las pruebas de diferencia son ampliamente usadas tanto en la academia como en la industria, con aplicaciones en el control de calidad, el estudio del impacto por cambios en la formulación o el proceso, la habilidad de los consumidores para discriminar entre dos productos similares, entre otras aplicaciones. Primero, se presenta una revisión de las pruebas discriminativas, haciendo énfasis en los diferentes tipos de pruebas, para luego describir las teorías de análisis estadístico de resultados, describiendo especialmente, los diversos problemas que se presentan en este tipo de pruebas. Finalmente, se presenta la modelación Thurstoniana que puede ser usada para obtener información, considerando el procesamiento central en el cerebro. La consideración de todas estas variables permitirá la selección del protocolo más adecuado en investigaciones de evaluación sensorial con este tipo de pruebas.
Abstract
Food sensorial analysis is an important area in research and development of new food alternatives. The type of sensorial analysis used, will depend on the type of information required; in this sense, this article contains a panoramic view of some difference tests, which are used to determine if there are perceptible differences among two food sample. These tests are widely used both in academy and industry, in applications such as food process quality control, evaluation of the impact on changes in food process or formulation, as well as for the ability of consumers to distinguish between two similar products, among other applications. First, there is a revision of discriminative tests, emphasizing on the different test included; then, the descriptions of the theories of analysis of results are included, especially describing the problems related to those analyses. Finally, the Thurstonian modeling is explained, that can be used to obtain information, considering the central processing of information that is carried out in the brain. The consideration of all the above variables, will allow select the most appropriate protocol for the type of sensorial analysis required in a particular food analysis
Keywords: Sensorial analysis, statistical tests, difference tests
Citas
Anzaldúa-Morales, A. 1994. La Evaluación Sensorial de los Alimentos en la Teoría y la Práctica. Acribia. ISBN 9788420007670.
Ennis, J. M. & V. Jesionka. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 26(5):371–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00353.x
Ennis, D. M. & K. Mullen 1986. A multivariate model for discrimination methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30(2): 206 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(86)90014-3
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
Frijters, J. E. R. 1982. Expanded tables for conversion of a proportion of correct responses (Pc) to the measure of sensory difference (d0) for the triangular method and the 3-alternative forced choice procedure. Journal of Food Science 47(1):139–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1982.tb11045.x
Hautus, M. J. & R. J. Irwin. 1995. Two models for estimating the discriminability of foods and beverages. Journal of Sensory Studies 10(2): 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1995.tb00014.x
Huang, Y. T. & H. T. Lawless. 1998. Sensitivity of the ABX discrimination test. Journal of Sensory Studies 13(2): 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00085.x
Lawless, H.T. & H. Heymann. 1999. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices. Aspen Publishers, Inc. ISBN 9781475764994. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7452-5
Lee, H. S., D. van Hout, M. Hautus & M. O’Mahony. 2007. Can the same - different test use a β criterion as well as τ criterion? Food Quality and Preference 18(4): 605 – 613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.03.024
MacMillan, N. A. & C. D. Creelman 1991. Detection Theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521368928, 9780521368926.
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
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. & B. Rousseau. 2002. Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and new. Food Quality and Preference 14(2): 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00109-X
Roessler, E. B., R. M. Pangborn, J. L. Sidel & H. Stone. 1978. Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in paired–preference, paired – difference, duo – trio and triangle tests. Journal of Food Science 43(3): 940 – 941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1978.tb02458.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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00303.x
Rousseau, B. & D. M. Ennis. 2001. A Thurstonian model for the dual-pair (4IAX) discrimination method. Perception and Psychophysics 63(6): 1083–1090. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3758/BF03194526
Rousseau, B., A. Meyer & M. O’Mahony. 1998. Power and sensitivity of the same–different test: comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 13(2):149–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00080.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. & M. O’Mahony. 2001. Investigation of the dual-pair method as a possible alternative to the triangle and same–different tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 16(2): 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00294.x
Rousseau, B. & M. O’Mahony. 2000. Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same– different and triangle paradigms. Food Quality and Preference 11: 457–464.
Rousseau, B., M. Rogeaux & M. O’Mahony. 1999. Mustard discrimination by same–different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and t criteria. Food Quality and Preference 10(3): 173–184.
Rousseau, B., S. Stroh & M. O’Mahony. 2002. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: effects of memory and response bias. Food Quality and Preference 13(1): 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00055-6
Stillman, J. A. & R. J. Irwin. 1995. Advantages of the same– different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. Journal of Sensory Studies 10(3): 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1995.tb00018.x
Stone, H. & J. L. Sidel. 1978. Computing exact probabilities in sensory discrimination tests. Journal of Food Science 43(3):1028–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1978.tb02480.x
Stone, H. & J. L. Sidel. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 2nd Edition. Academic Press. ISBN 9780323139762.
Derechos de autor 2020 TECNOCIENCIA Chihuahua
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0.
