Title

Discriminative Test: Triangle Test Difference Analysis and Duo-Trio Test Difference
Analysis

Introduction

Discrimination testing, as a class of tests, has been one of the most competent analytical
tools that is designed on the basis of a perceptible difference between two products that
is justifiable by human senses, or the exact opposite where there is absence of any
sensory variation among the products. A diversity of specific methods, such as triangle,
paired-comparison, and duo-trio tests, are within this general class of sensory tests, all
of which intended to find out if the products compared are perceptibly different (Stone,
Bleibaum and Thomas, 2012). With that, these methods are vital and applicable for
testing whether the product in question is affected by changes in ingredients and
processes made for the sake of cost reduction or otherwise (Lawless and Heymann,
1999).

As its name implies, the triangle test is a discriminative test in which three coded
samples, two identical and one odd, are presented to the panellist or the subject, whose
task is to identify the odd sample from the samples served. Implemented to determine
the existence of an overall variation between two products, the triangle test is handy
because the panellists would only need to be familiar with the format of the test and
specification on the nature of the difference detected among the samples is not required.
However, despite being more statistically powerful than other discriminative tests,
triangle test has limited use with products capable of causing sensory fatigue or those
with high carryover effects (Yang and Boyle, 2016). For those products, as well as the
products with intense flavour and/or kinaesthetic effects, the duo-trio test, in which the
panellist is presented with a reference sample and two coded samples, and is asked to
identify the coded sample matching the reference sample, would be a more competent
alternative (Stone, Bleibaum and Thomas, 2012). Being easily understood, this test has
an advantage of being applicable with trained or untrained panellists, despite it is
statistically inefficient compared to the triangle test (Yang and Boyle, 2016).
 The objectives of this practical are to determine whether a perceptible difference
exists between 2 types of baked beans using the triangle test and the duo-trio test.

Results

A. Triangle test

Data analysis

Table 1 Results of Panellists' Responses for Triangle Test

Panellist Correctness of the response

1 Correct
2 Incorrect
3 Correct
4 Correct
5 Incorrect
6 Incorrect
7 Correct
8 Correct
9 Correct
10 Correct
Total number of correct responses 7

Using Statistical Chart 3, the significance in triangle test for 10 panellists is as the
following:

Level of error, α Minimum correct judgements to establish significant

differentiation
0.05 7
0.01 8
0.001 9
Interpretation of result

The odd sample was correctly identified by 7 out of 10 panellists. Therefore, according
to Statistical Chart 3, there is a significant difference between the two types of baked
beans at the critical value α = 0.05. Hence, there is a detectable difference between the
two types of baked beans.

B. Duo-Trio Test

Data analysis

Table 2 Results of Panellists' Responses for Duo-Trio Test

Panellist Correctness of the response

1 Incorrect
2 Correct
3 Incorrect
4 Incorrect
5 Correct
6 Correct
7 Correct
8 Correct
9 Incorrect
10 Incorrect
Total number of correct responses 5

Using Statistical Chart 4, the significance in paired test (one-tailed test) for 10 panellists
is as the following:

Level of error, α Minimum correct judgements to establish significant

differentiation
0.05 9
0.01 10
0.001 10
Interpretation of result

The odd sample was correctly identified by 5 out of 10 panellists. Therefore, according
to Statistical Chart 4, there is no significant difference between the two types of baked
beans at the critical value α = 0.05. Hence, there is no detectable difference between
the two types of baked beans.

Discussion

According to the results of the discriminative tests conducted, whilst the two types of
baked beans have been indicated to be significantly different by the triangle test at the
level of error of α = 0.05, the result of the duo-trio test indicated otherwise at the same
significance level. The disparity of the results can be explained by a number of factors,
particularly the intrinsic difference in the taste sensitivity among the panellists.
According to Lawless and Heymann (2010), recent studies have shown that there is a
correlation between counts of papillae and taste buds with the intensity of the taste and
flavour perceived. While the amount of foliate and circumvallate papillae is not
significantly different among people, the amount and form of the fungiform papillae,
which can be found on the anterior portion of the tongue, do vary substantially. As taste
buds are generally present in the fungiform papillae, there exists a positive relationship
between the amount of fungiform papillae that one possesses and the strength of the
taste signals the brain will receive. With that, people with greater counts of papillae
have the ability of distinguishing individual flavours in a mixture at ease, whereas
people with lower amount of taste buds, the individual flavours would be perceived as
a whole because of their lower sensitivity in flavours (Taste Science LLC., 2015).
Hence, this congenital difference among individuals and the panellists would have been
accountable for the results obtained from the two difference tests conducted.

Other than that, as the protocol for sample evaluation had not been well
established and standardized for the panellists, the way each panellist assessed a sample
might have also contributed to the results acquired. During both of the difference tests,
as the act of expectorating the food sample was instructed not to be mandatory upon
the assessors, it was observed that some panellists had ingested each sample while
others had the samples spat out. This would have given rise to a significant difference
in flavour perception among the panellists, as swallowing has a vital niche in delivering
the aroma volatiles to the nasal cavity and contributing to the sensation of flavour
(Kemp, Hollowood and Hort, 2009). In addition, the fact that numerous sensory
receptor cells are found to be present at the posterior portion of the oral cavity and on
the throat makes swallowing a crucial contributor of flavour perception, as it allows
some of the important attributes of samples, which can only be sensed there, to be
sensed (Kemp, Hollowood and Hort, 2009). However, the act of swallowing the sample
is also influential to the taste of the subsequent samples (Sung, n.d.). Hence, due to the
fact that the decision had not been made regarding whether the panellists should
expectorate the sample, the phenomenon as observed in the results might have been
caused by the interference arised from the inconsistency in the practices of evaluating
the samples.

Next, distraction error could also be one of the factors leading to the outcome
obtained. This is plausible because without the prohibition of mobile phone usage
during testing, the panellists, who had been using their smartphones during the
evaluation of the samples, would have had their attention diverted from the task in hand.
Besides, personal preoccupations, such as time pressure or domestic issues, might also
be an undesirable distraction for the panellists (Kemp, Hollowood and Hort, 2009).
Aside from that, lack of motivation could be another possible factor attributing to the
results, as some of the assessors might have lost their interest in the tests due to being
forced to taste a food they dislike intensely, thus giving a performance that was less
reliable compared to those that were interested (Kemp, Hollowood and Hort, 2009).
Last but not least, the physical condition of each panellist during the time of the tests
would also be a possible source of variation that led to the results, as stress, as well as
the time of the day, are impactful on sensory acuity (Kemp, Hollowood and Hort, 2009).

Throughout the practical, the similarities between the triangle and duo-trio tests
had been realized and understood clearly. First and foremost, being two of the specific
methods for discriminative testing, both the triangle and the duo-trio tests have the same
objective of determining the existence of a sensible difference between two samples
(Kemp, Hollowood and Hort, 2009). Secondly, both tests involve presenting the
assessors with a triad of samples, all of which being mandatory to be tasted in order to
complete the tests. Next, both tests follow a forced-choice procedure in which the
choice of reporting “no difference” is not allowed among panellists. This means that
for the panellist that detects no difference between the samples, he or she must select
one of the samples randomly and indicate in the comment section of the score sheet that
the selection was only a guess (British Standard, 2004a; 2004b). Moreover, both tests
use one-tailed test to determine the minimum number of correct responses for
establishing significant difference between the two samples (Lawless and Heymann,
1999). On the other hand, when the data are analysed by hand, a significant difference
between the two samples can only be concluded from the tests provided that the total
number of correct responses is equal or greater than the critical minimum value
determined from different statistical tables for the tests (Kemp, Hollowood and Hort,
2009).

There are also differences between triangle and duo-trio test in terms of their
principle, application and efficiency. In terms of their principle, for the triangle test,
there will always be six possible orders of serving (AAB, ABA, BAA, BBA, BAB,
ABB) to be counterbalanced among the assessors (Sung, n.d.), whereas depending on
the format, the duo-trio test can have two (Ref-AB and Ref-BA, for constant reference
technique in which the reference is fixed to be one of the samples) or four (A-AB, A-
BA, B-AB, and B-BA, for balanced reference technique in which the reference can be
either sample) (Kemp, Hollowood and Hort, 2009). Next, a correct response for the
triangle test would be one that successfully selects the odd sample from the triad. In
opposition, for the duo-trio test, an assessor’s response would be the correct one if he
or she successfully select the sample that is similar to the reference (Zoecklein, n.d.).
In terms of efficiency, duo-trio test is more statistically inefficient test (Yang and Boyle,
2016), with the chance of guessing the correct answer being 50% (Sung, n.d.). Owing
to its method of presentation, triangle test is a more statistically efficient test, with 33.3%
chance of selecting the right answer by guessing (Sung, n.d.). Last but not least, the
difference between both tests in terms of application has been described in the
introduction, such that duo-trio test is applicable when the products to be tested are
those capable of causing sensory fatigue, those with high carryover effects, or those
with intense flavour and/or kinaesthetic effects, as the triangle test has limited use on
these products (Yang and Boyle, 2016).

Conclusion

At the level of error of α = 0.05, the triangle test indicates that a perceptible difference
exists between the two types of baked beans, whereas the duo-trio test indicates
otherwise.

Reference

British Standard, 2004a. Sensory analysis – Methodology – Triangle test. [online]

Available at:
<http://222.78.240.121:88/jpkc/UpFile/file/spapjyjs3/BS%20ISO%204120-2004.pdf>
[Accessed 9 February 2017].

British Standard, 2004b. Sensory analysis – Methodology – Duo-trio test. [online]

Available at:
<http://gzspgy.net/uploads/BS%20ISO%2010399%202004%20%E6%84%9F%E5%
AE%98%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90-%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E5%AD%A6-%E
5%91%B3%E8%A7%89%E5%AF%B9%E6%AF%94%E8%AF%95%E9%AA%8C
%E6%B3%95.pdf> [Accessed 9 February 2017].

Kemp, S.E., Hollowood, T. and Hort, J., 2009. Sensory Evaluation: A Practical
Handbook. West Essex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H., 1999. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Boston, MA:
Springer.

Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H., 2010. Physiological and Psychological Foundations
of Sensory Function. In: Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. New
York: Springer. pp. 19-56.

Stone, H., Bleibaum, R. and Thomas, H.A., 2012. Sensory Evaluation Practices. 4th ed.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sung, E.C., (n.d.). Sensory Evaluation. [online] Available at:
<http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449694777/9781449603441_CH03.pdf> [Accessed 9
February 2017].

Taste Science LLC., (n.d.). Everybody Experiences Flavor Differently!. [online]

Available at: <http://www.tastescience.com/abouttaste3.html> [Accessed 8 February
2018].

Yang, X. and Boyle, R.A., 2016. Sensory Evaluation of Oils/Fats and Oil/Fat-Based
Foods. [online] Available at: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-
biological-sciences/tetrad-test> [Accessed 8 February 2018].

Zoecklein, B.W., (n.d.). Sensory Analysis – Section 4. [online] Available at: <
http://www.apps.fst.vt.edu/extension/enology/downloads/wm_issues/Sensory%20Ana
lysis/Sensory%20Analysis%20-%20Section%204.pdf> [Accessed 10 February 2017].