1. M. A. Amerine, R. M. Pangborn, and E. B. Roessler, Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food, New York, Academic Press, New York, 1965.

2. R. M. Pangborn and I. Trabue, "Bibliography of the Sense of Taste," in M. R. Kare and O. Mailer, eds., The Chemical Senses and Nutrition, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1967.

3. R. Harper, E. C. Bate-Smith, and D. G. Land, Odour Description and Odour Classification, American Elsevier, New York, 1968.

4. J. E. Amoore, "A Plan to Identify Most of the Primary Odors," in C. Pfaffmann, ed., Olfaction and Taste IV, Rockefeller University Press, New York, 1969, pp. 158-171.

5. R. Harper, E. C. Bate-Smith, and N. M. Griffiths, "Odour qualities: A glossary of usage," British Journal Of Psychology 59, 231-252 (1968).

6. H. Sokolow, "Qualitative Methods for Language Development, in H. Moskowitz, ed., Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods, Vol I, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1988, pp. 3-20.

7. J. F. Caul, "The Profile Method of Flavor Analysis," Advances in Food Research, 1957 pp. 1—40.

8. A. J. Neilson, V. B. Ferguson, and D. A. Kendall, "Profile methods: Flavor profile and profile attribute analysis," in H. R. Moskowitz, edApplied Sensory Analysis of Foods, Vol I, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1988, pp. 22-41.

9. H. Stone, J. L. Sidel, S. Oliver, A. Woolsey, and R. Singleton, "Sensory Evaluation by Quantitative Descriptive Analysis," Food Technology 28, 24-34 (1974).

10. K. L. Zook and J. H. Pearce, "Quantitative Descriptive Analysis," in H. R. Moskowitz, ed., Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods, Vol I, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1988, pp. 44-71.

11. M. Meilgaard, G. V. Civille, andB. T. Carr, Sensory Evaluation Techniques, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1987.

12. A. S. Szczesniak, M. A. Brandt, and H. H. Friedman, "Development of standard rating scales for mechanical parameters of texture and correlation between the objective and sensory methods of texture evaluation," Journal of Food Science 28, 397-403 (1963).

13. N. Schwartz, "Adaptation of the Sensory Texture Profile to Skin Care Products," Journal of Texture Studies 6,33 (1975).

14. M. Yoshida, "Studies in the Psychometric Classification of Odor," Japanese Psychological Research 6, 111-115 (1964).

15. M. Yoshida, "Dimensions of Tactile Perceptions," Japanese Psychological Research 10, 157-173 (1968).

16. S. Yoshikawa, S. Nishimaru, T. Tashiro, and M. Yoshida, "Collection and Classification of Words for Description of Food Texture, I, II, III," Journal of Texture Studies 1, 437-463 (1970).

17. C. Coombs, A Theory of Data, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1964.

18. R. N. Shepard, "The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance Function," Psy-chometrika 27, 219-246 (1962).

19. M. Bourne, personal communication, 1975.

20. G. A. Gescheider, Psyehophysies: Method and Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J. 1976.

21. E. H. Weber, De Pulsu Resorptime, Auditor, et Tache. Annotations Anaomatieal et Physiological, Leipzig, Koehler, 1834, (cited by E. G. Boring, Sensation and Perception In; The History of Experimental Psychology, New York, AppletonCentury Crofts, New York, 1942.

22. G. T. Fechner, Elemente der Psychophysik, Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig, 1860.

23. F. Lemberger, "Psychophysiche Untersuchungen über den Geschmack von Zucker und Saccharin," Pfleuger's Archiv fur die Gesamte Physiologie 123, 293-311 (1908).

24. S. S. Stevens, "On the Brightness of Lights and the Loudness of Sounds," Science 118, 576 (1953).

25. B. Bond and S. S. Stevens, "Cross Modality Matches of Brightness and Loudness by 5 Year Olds," Perception & Psycho-physics 6, 337-339 (1969).

26. H. R. Moskowitz, "Intensity Scales for Pure Tastes and Taste Mixtures," Perception & Psyehophysies 9, 51-56 (1971).

27. H. L. Meiselman, "Scales for Measuring Food Preference," in M. S. Petersen and A. H. Johnson, eds., Encyclopedis of Food Science, Avi, Westport, Conn., 1978, pp. 675-678.

28. H. G. Schutz, "Food Action Rating Scale for Measuring Food Acceptance," Journal of Food Science 30, 365-374 (1965).

29. J. L. Balintfy, P. Sinha, H. R. Moskowitz, and J. G. Rogozenski, The Time Dependence of Food Preferences, Food Product Development, Nov. 1975.

30. G. E. Box, W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter, Statistics For Experimenters, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1978.

31. R. L. Plackett and J. D. Burman, "The Design of Optimum Multifactorial Experiments," Biometrika 33, 305-325 (1946).

32. J. G. Beebe-Center, The Psychology of Pleasantness And Unpleasantness, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1932.

33. H. R. Moskowitz, "Relative Importance of Perceptual Factors to Consumer Acceptance: Linear Versus Quadratic Analysis," Journal of Food Science 46, 244-248 (1981).

Howard R. Moskowitz

Moskowitz Jacobs Inc.

White Plains, New York


Whenever the sensory properties of a substance are at issue, the sine qua non is that sensory evaluation is supreme. No chemical, physical, or instrumental test can substitute for sensory judgment under all circumstances. Humans and other animals are the only ones who can make decisions about acceptability or other sensory judgments. Notwithstanding that, there have been efforts as long as chemical and sensory measurements have coexisted for technologists and others to attempt to substitute chemical or physical measurements for sensory ones. Some reasons are obvious. Others are more illusory than factual. Among the obvious ones is the fact that chemical and mechanical tests usually can be conducted at any time whereas the "expert" tea taster, fish smeller, or the sensory panel—if the firm is more in the modern mode—are often available only during the daytime shift. Among the reasons more illusory than factual is the conception that chemical tests are more objective and precise; they often are, but that is not necessarily better. As in target shooting, there are differences between precision and accuracy. The archer or marksman may group shots close together, thus being precise, but the shots may be at the rim of the target instead of at the bull's-eye. Although a chemical test may be very precise in itself, it may miss the target simply because it is measuring an attribute not particularly well correlated with sensory quality. The purpose of this article is to describe how correlations may be established, if they exist, and how to use those that do exist most effectively as substitutes for, or complements to, sensory evaluation. The statement made above that no instrumental test can substitute for sensory evaluation under all circumstances is true, but fortunately there are many instances where instrumental measurements, once shown to be correlated with sensory judgment, can be used beneficially as replacements for sensory evaluation provided from time to time the instrumental test is restandardized or validated against sensory evaluation. In spite of some of the limitations just mentioned, the use of instrumental tests to supplement sensory evaluation for quality-control purposes is already a well-established industrial practice. In basic research, such tests are even more valuable. If we ever hope to understand sensory perception, most certainly knowledge of the role played by specific compounds, functional groups, and various forms of interaction among compounds must be ascertained. The interaction referred to here is not the chemical reaction between compounds but the perceptual interaction in the brain where there are often additive, masking, or synergistic effects. While correlations themselves are not adequate, they are a step toward establishing cause-and-effect relations.

Homemade Pet Food Secrets

Homemade Pet Food Secrets

It is a well known fact that homemade food is always a healthier option for pets when compared to the market packed food. The increasing hazards to the health of the pets have made pet owners stick to containment of commercial pet food. The basic fundamentals of health for human beings are applicable for pets also.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment