The ?eld of sensory science has grown exponentially since the
publication of the p- vious version of this work. Fifteen years ago the
journal Food Quality and Preference was fairly new. Now it holds an
eminent position as a venue for research on sensory test methods (among
many other topics). Hundreds of articles relevant to sensory testing
have appeared in that and in other journals such as the Journal of
Sensory Studies. Knowledge of the intricate cellular processes in
chemoreception, as well as their genetic basis, has undergone nothing
less than a revolution, culminating in the award of the Nobel Prize to
Buck and Axel in 2004 for their discovery of the olfactory receptor gene
super family. Advances in statistical methodology have accelerated as
well. Sensometrics meetings are now vigorous and well-attended annual
events. Ideas like Thurstonian modeling were not widely embraced 15
years ago, but now seem to be part of the everyday thought process of
many sensory scientists. And yet, some things stay the same. Sensory
testing will always involve human participants. Humans are tough
measuring instruments to work with. They come with varying degrees of
acumen, training, experiences, differing genetic equipment, sensory
capabilities, and of course, different preferences. Human foibles and
their associated error variance will continue to place a limitation on
sensory tests and actionable results. Reducing, controlling,
partitioning, and explaining error variance are all at the heart of good
test methods and practices.
