Sensory Evaluation Center, College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
J Food Sci. 2012 Oct;77(10):S390-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02889.x. Epub 2012 Aug 27.
Classical detection thresholds do not predict liking, as they focus on the presence or absence of a sensation. Recently however, Prescott and colleagues described a new method, the rejection threshold, where a series of forced choice preference tasks are used to generate a dose-response function to determine hedonically acceptable concentrations. That is, how much is too much? To date, this approach has been used exclusively in liquid foods. Here, we determined group rejection thresholds in solid chocolate-flavored compound coating for bitterness. The influences of self-identified preferences for milk or dark chocolate, as well as eating style (chewers compared to melters) on rejection thresholds were investigated. Stimuli included milk chocolate-flavored compound coating spiked with increasing amounts of sucrose octaacetate, a bitter and generally recognized as safe additive. Paired preference tests (blank compared to spike) were used to determine the proportion of the group that preferred the blank. Across pairs, spiked samples were presented in ascending concentration. We were able to quantify and compare differences between 2 self-identified market segments. The rejection threshold for the dark chocolate preferring group was significantly higher than the milk chocolate preferring group (P= 0.01). Conversely, eating style did not affect group rejection thresholds (P= 0.14), although this may reflect the amount of chocolate given to participants. Additionally, there was no association between chocolate preference and eating style (P= 0.36). Present work supports the contention that this method can be used to examine preferences within specific market segments and potentially individual differences as they relate to ingestive behavior.
This work makes use of the rejection threshold method to study market segmentation, extending its use to solid foods. We believe this method has broad applicability to the sensory specialist and product developer by providing a process to identify how much is too much when formulating products, even in the context of specific market segments. We illustrate this in solid chocolate-flavored compound coating, identifying substantial differences in the amount of acceptable bitterness in those who prefer milk chocolate compared to dark chocolate. This method provides a direct means to answer the question of how much is too much.
经典的检测阈值不能预测喜好,因为它们只关注感觉的存在或缺失。然而,最近 Prescott 及其同事描述了一种新方法,即拒绝阈值,其中使用一系列强制选择偏好任务来生成剂量反应函数,以确定在愉悦上可接受的浓度。也就是说,多少才算太多?迄今为止,这种方法仅在液体食品中使用。在这里,我们确定了固体巧克力味复合涂层苦味的群体拒绝阈值。研究了自我认定的牛奶或黑巧克力偏好以及饮食方式(咀嚼者与融化者)对拒绝阈值的影响。刺激物包括添加了越来越多的蔗糖八乙酸酯的牛奶巧克力味复合涂层,蔗糖八乙酸酯是一种苦味且被普遍认为安全的添加剂。使用配对偏好测试(空白对照物与添加物)来确定组中更喜欢空白对照物的比例。在每对中,添加的样品按浓度递增呈现。我们能够量化和比较 2 个自我认定的市场细分群体之间的差异。偏爱黑巧克力群体的拒绝阈值明显高于偏爱牛奶巧克力群体(P=0.01)。相反,饮食方式并未影响群体拒绝阈值(P=0.14),尽管这可能反映了给予参与者的巧克力量。此外,巧克力偏好与饮食方式之间没有关联(P=0.36)。目前的工作支持这样一种观点,即该方法可用于研究特定市场细分群体内的偏好,以及与摄食行为相关的个体差异。
这项工作利用拒绝阈值方法研究市场细分,将其应用扩展到固体食品。我们相信,通过提供一种在制定产品时确定“多少才算太多”的方法,即使在特定市场细分的背景下,该方法也具有广泛的适用性,可以为感官专家和产品开发人员提供帮助。我们在固体巧克力味复合涂层中说明了这一点,确定了喜欢牛奶巧克力的人与喜欢黑巧克力的人在可接受苦味的量上存在显著差异。该方法提供了一种直接的方法来回答“多少才算太多”的问题。