1. Food Science and Technology, edited by Geoffrey Campbell-Platt. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 1 Figure 13.1 Sensory analytical discrimination test – paired comparison and A/not-A.

2. Food Science and Technology, edited by Geoffrey Campbell-Platt. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2 Figure 13.2 Sensory analytical discrimination test – triangle.

3. Food Science and Technology, edited by Geoffrey Campbell-Platt. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 3 Figure 13.3 Sensory analytical discrimination test – duo-trio.

4. Food Science and Technology, edited by Geoffrey Campbell-Platt. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 4 Figure 13.4 Sensory analytical discrimination test – dual standard.

5. Food Science and Technology, edited by Geoffrey Campbell-Platt. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 5 Figure 13.5 QDA spider plot of sensory attributes. Each spoke in the wheel represents a sensory attribute. Entries are product mean values for each attribute. At the center of the wheel = low intensity; at the end of each spoke = higher intensity. Products that exhibit quantifiable sensory differences can be evaluated by target consumers. Then, by using a variety of multivariate analysis techniques, the key sensory characteristics that most influence target consumer liking can be designed into products, as well as providing a benchmark versus key competition. When consumer-based sensory evaluation techniques are used in conjunction with marketing and marketing research techniques, it provides an effective business strategy for brand management.

6. Food Science and Technology, edited by Geoffrey Campbell-Platt. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 6 Figure 13.6 Example of a QDA spider plot of fruit yogurt. Results illustrate product similarities and differences by attribute. Control was: Higher/Stronger in Overall Flavor, Bitter Taste, Sour Taste, Thick Mouthfeel, and Lingering Aftertaste; Lower/Weaker in Sweet Taste, Yogurt Flavor, and Raspberry Flavor.