SENSORY THRESHOLDS: CONCEPTS AND METHODS

JIAN BI and DANIEL M. ENNIS

The Institutefor Perception
300 Arboretum Place, Suite 430
Richmond, VA 23236
Received for Publication May 11, 1996

ABSTRACT
A sensory threshold can be defined generally as a stimulus intensity that
produces a response in half of the trials. The deflnirion of the population
threshold is discussed. Five main classical statistical procedures for estimating
thresholds are reviewed. They are the probit, the logistic, the Spearman-Karber,
the moving average and the up-and-abwn procedures. Some new developments in
statistical methodr for estimating thresholds are outlined. The newly developed
methoh include the generalized probit and logistic models, the model based on
the Beta-Binomial distribution, the trimmed Spearman-Karber method, the kernel
method and the sigmoidally constrained maximum likelihood estimation method.
The authors propose a new procedure based on the Beta-Binomial distributionfor
estimating population threshold.

INTRODUCTION
Sensory analysis methods can be divided into four categories: sensitivity,
quantitative, qualitative and affective (Pangborn 1984). Sensory threshold is a
measure of human sensitivity to a given stimulus. Determination of sensory
threshold is an essential element in sensory analysis and is important today for a
variety of purposes including the selection of panelists and the study of ingredient
variation limits in products (Meilgaard et al. 1991).
The aims of this paper are to discuss the concept of the threshold and to
review the classical and new statistical methods for estimating thresholds, some
of which are not well known among sensory practitioners. In addition, a
definition of the population threshold and a new model for estimating population
thresholds are given.
Two types of sensitivity tests exist: direct and indirect. In a direct sensitivity
Journal of Sensory Studies 13 (1998) 133-148. All Rights Reserved.
Topyright 1998 by Food & Nutrition Press, Inc.. Trumbull. Connecticut.

133

134

J . BI and D.M. ENNIS

test, it is assumed that sensitivity can be measured directly. In an indirect

sensitivity test, the tests are conducted repeatedly at several chosen stimulus
levels, then the sensitivity is estimated by suitable statistical methods based on the
responses obtained at the different levels.
Any type of sensitivity test also can be described as either quantitative or
quantal (yes-or-no) according to the types of responses elicited. The indirect
quantal sensitivity test has become a common type of test. This paper mainly is
concerned with the statistical methods used to interpret data from the indirect
quantal sensitivity test.
In every sensitivity test, two components must be considered: the stimulus
and the subject. The stimulus is applied to the subject at a stated intensity. As
a result, the subject manifests a response. If the response is quantal, the percent
of response as a function of stimulus intensity is determined. For each stimulus
value, the proportion of correct responses is computed. An ogive curve called a
psychometric function or dose-response curve is then fitted to the points. One
particular point on the curve is the point corresponding to a 50% response rate.
Fitting the curve, estimating the threshold (the stimulus intensity associated with
a 50% response rate) and determining its confidence intervals are the main goals
of analyzing the data.
Traditionally, sensory analysts have studied thresholds from the perspective
of psychophysics which provided the classical methods such as limits, adjustment
and constant stimuli methods for obtaining thresholds. However, the sensitivity
test is common in many fields.
In biological assays, in toxicology,
pharmacology, endocrinology and plant pathology experimental investigations
often attempt to determine a critical dose for obtaining reactions in living matter.
This method is also used in nonbiological fields such as the sensitivity to
mechanical shock (impact tests of high explosives or artillery fuses; izod impact
tests of metals or plastics; and drop tests of packing cases) or high explosives
sensitivity to setback pressures. Although the interpretation of sensitivities in
these fields are different, the basic principles and methods for measuring
sensitivities are similar. Powerful methods for estimating thresholds have been
established and new methods are being developed. One of the goals of this paper
is to discuss new information about measuring sensitivity from other fields and to
apply it to sensory thresholds.

THRESHOLD: A STATISTICAL CONCEPT

The General Definition of Threshold
Thresholds often are thought of as the stimulus intensity which defines the
lower limit of sensitivity of the sensory system. Stimulus intensity below that

SENSORY THRESHOLDS

135

level is assumed not to have enough effect (detection or difference) on the sensory
system and, therefore, cannot be perceived. The intuitive appeal of this idea is
that there must be some absolute value below which the sensitivity of the sensory
system does not permit detection. Optimally, the threshold is thought of as a
sharp transition point between sensation and no sensation. Inherent in the idea of
a threshold is the assumption that the transition point is independent of conditions.
In practice, the response of the system is affected by many psychological and
physiological inputs, and shifts in the transition point (if it exists) may occur.
This makes measurement of the threshold difficult and the transition point difficult
to be defined. The problem is solved by treating the threshold as a statistical
concept. The threshold is seen as a random variable that varies both between
observers and within a given observer across time. Empirical data demonstrate
that the detectability of stimuli does not follow a step function in which detection
jumps from 0 to 100% at some special value. In fact, the probability of detection
increases gradually when the intensity of a stimulus increases. Thresholds often
are defined as a stimulus intensity that will produce a response in half
the population, i.e., in 50% of the trials. In a bioassay, the threshold is
expressed as the median effective dose (ED,,) or the median lethal dose (LD,,),
using a specified response or death in 50% of the population,
Although the threshold cannot be defined as the stimulus intensity below
which detection never occurs and above which detection always occurs (a
transition point), the concept of the threshold is useful because it affords a
technique for quantifying the sensitivity of an individual or of a specified
population. This information can be used to evaluate individual sensitivity and to
establish quality control limits in food production or in pollution control.
Moreover, it becomes possible to estimate points of interest other than the 50%point, for example, the stimulus intensity that an individual can detect 90% of the
time, or the stimulus intensity that can be detected by 1% of a given population.

The Definition of the Population Threshold

Individual sensitivity and population sensitivity are of interest in sensory
analysis. In ASTM E-253-90 (ASTM E-18 1990), the population threshold is
defined as the median or other measure of central tendency of the distribution
of detection or recognition thresholds for a stimulus for a specified population.
Unlike the general definition of threshold, the definition of the population
threshold is based on other threshold information (individual thresholds).
According to this definition, the calculation procedure for a population threshold
includes two steps: firstly, estimating the individual thresholds, then estimating
the population threshold by determining the median or other suitable measure of
central tendency of the individual thresholds.
The problem with the current definition is that in order to estimate a

136

J . BI and D.M. ENNIS

population threshold, many individual thresholds must be estimated (ASTM E-18

1991). This is very difficult in practice and really not necessary. We cannot
expect to gain more precision for an estimate of a population threshold from
repeated tests on an individual because the variation among individuals is the main
error source in estimating population thresholds. Moreover, according to the
definition, we cannot obtain a good estimate of the precision of the population
threshold because the estimator is not obtained from a single target population.
In our opinion, the population threshold can also be defined as a stimulus
intensity that will produce a response in half of the target population. The
difference between population and individual thresholds lies in how to interpret
the target population. For an individual threshold, the target population is
composed of all possible repeated tests of the same stimulus under the same
conditions. For a population threshold, the target population is composed of all
possible repeated tests of the same stimulus under the same conditions for all
individuals in a specified group. Therefore, the target population for estimating
a population threshold is a single compound population composed of sensitivities
that differ within and among individuals. According to this definition, the
individual thresholds need not be estimated to determine population threshold.
The population threshold and its confidence intervals can be estimated directly
from a sample drawn from the single compound population. The Beta-Binomial
(BB) model (Ennis and Bi 1998) can be used to model different sources of
variation in the compound population. The estimation procedure using the BB
model is given in the last section of this paper.

CLASSICAL STATISTICAL METHODS FOR

ESTIMATING THRESHOLD
There are two basic approaches for estimating thresholds and their confidence
intervals: the parametric approach and the nonparametric approach.
In the parametric approach, the probit and logistic models are the most
prominent and most widely used (Berkson 1944; Bliss 1934). Two methods of
estimation for each model are the maximum likelihood procedure and the
minimum chi-square procedure. Finney (1971) favored the probit model and the
maximum likelihood procedure, Berkson (1955) advocated the logistic model and
the minimum chi-squared procedure. The parametric approach is efficient if the
distribution of sensitivities follows the assumed model. However, psychological
and biological mechanisms of threshold are often so complicated that the form of
the psychometric function or dose-response curve is largely unknown, and fitting
a wrong model can then lead to large and unpredictable biases with invalid
confident intervals. In such situations, nonparametric approaches provide an
alternative. Of the nonparametric approach, the Spearman-Karber Method and

SENSORY THRESHOLDS

137

the Moving average method are used widely for their theoretical and practical
merits.

The Probit Method

The probit method was initiated by Bliss (1935a,b, 1938) and further
developed by Finney (1971). The theory underlying the probit method is that the
hypothetical distribution of tolerance (the distribution of threshold) is normally
distributed. In other words, the psychometric function or dose-response curve
follows the cumulative normal distribution. Since this curve was at one time
difficult to work with, Bliss (19353 developed the probit transformation. This
transformation effectively straightens the sigmoid psychometric function or doseresponse curve and allows the threshold and, in fact, all the values on the curve
to be estimated based on a weighted linear regression model. This method
includes a graphic probit method and an exact probit method.

Graphic Method.
Estimation of Threshold. Convert the percent correct above chance, P, to
probits Y. Y = zp 5, where zp is P percentile of standard normal distribution.
i = 1,2,. ..k on ordinary rectangular coordinate graph paper,
Plot points ( X I ,
or on normal probability graph paper. Here, X I is stimulus intensity (or log
stimulus intensity). Draw a straight line by computer or by eye to fit the k points.
Read off threshold (or log threshold), the value of stimulus intensity, X,,
corresponding to Y=5 (or P=0.5 on normal probability graph paper).
Estimation of the Confidence Interval of the Threshold. Calculate 6 , the slope
of the fitting line. Mark two convenient points, (Xc, Y,) and (Xd, Y,) on the line,
The equation of the fitted line is as Y=5+b(X-X,). Read
then b=(Y,Y,)/X,-X,).
off r, corresponding to X,from the fitted line (or calculate from the equation of
the fitted line). Read off the weighting coefficients, w, corresponding to Y, (from
Table A-18 (Natrella 1963)). The approximate standard error of X , can be
obtained from the equation: JV(X,)= {b2(Xnw)}-2.
The upper and lower 95%
confidence intervals of threshold can be obtained by the equation:

x),

(X,),=X,+ 1.96 JV(x,); (Xr),=X,-1.96JV(X,).

Exact Method. The graphical solution often is adequate, but the exact
method may be necessary. For example, the points may be too irregular for us
to place any confidence in a line drawn by eye; or, the weights, that should be
attached to each point, may be so different as to make it difficult to adjust for
them visually.
The exact probit method uses a weighted iterative procedure to fit a straight
line. The threshold and its confidence intervals can be estimated on the basis of

138

J. BI and D.M. ENNIS

the fitted straight line. See Natrella (1963) for detail.

The Logistic Method

Berkson (1944) first introduced the logistic method. This method is similar
to the probit method except that the underlying tolerance distribution is assumed
to be logistic rather than normal. The logistic distribution is a bell-shaped curve
similar to the normal curve, but it has heavier tails, i.e., probabilities of extreme
values are larger. When the stimulus levels used in the test are between the levels
which cut off the lower and upper 10% of the distribution, any one of normal and
logistic distributions will fit the data nearly as well (or as poorly) as another.
However, estimates of the threshold using the logistic method involve simpler
computation than that using the probit method. This method uses the logit values
produced by the logit transformation to fit a linear regression model by using
either the maximum likelihood or chi-square curve-fitting technique. The
threshold and its confidence intervals are estimated on the basis of the fitted
straight line.
The Berkson's logistic model is:
P=eY/(l+e')
Y= b(X,-X)

The values of the logit transformation is:

Y=log(P/( 1-P))
where P = proportion of correct responses above chance; b = slope; X =
stimulus intensity; X, = threshold.

The Spearman-Karber Method

The Spearman-Karber method is a nonparametric method for estimating
threshold. This method was first proposed by Spearman (1908) for experiments
in psychology and reintroduced by Karber (1931) for experiments in
pharmacology. The method is particularly simple and easily understood. It has
good precision of estimation and does not depend on the assumption of normality.
The method requires that the distribution is symmetrical about its mean.
Because, in fact, this method gives an estimate of the mean of the distribution, the
mean of the distribution is equal to the median when the symmetrical distribution
condition holds. A logarithm transformation of stimulus intensity is the most
frequently used transformation for the purpose of symmetry of distribution.

139

SENSORY THRESHOLDS

The method also requires a wide range of stimulus levels. In other words,
the lowest stimulus X, must be sufficiently low that there are no responses among
the objects tested and the highest stimulus X, must be sufficiently high that all
objects tested respond. A rule sometimes stated is that if the proportion of
responses at the lowest stimulus PpO or the proportion of responses at the highest
stimulus P,+ 1, the next stimulus level in the series, though untested, should be
assumed to have given P,=O or P,+,= 1; the estimation is then completed as for
the longer series (Finney 1978).
For
The log threshold can be estimated by rn=~,=,k{(Pl+,-P,)(X,+X,+,)/2}.
The
equally spaced log stimulus levels, X,+,-Xl = d, rn = X, +O.Sd-c,=,
l * - l )n*=(l-C)n,
~.
C= 1/3
estimation of error is V(m) = ~ ~ l = ~ { P l { l - P , ) / ( ~Where
in the 3-AFC procedure. The 95 percent confidence limits for rn are mu =
m+1.96JV(rn) and m, = rn-1.96JV(rn).

'e.

The Moving Average Method

Thompson ( 1947) proposed the nonparametric method for estimating
threshold. Bennett (1952, 1963) and Weil (1952) further developed the method.
This method was found to perform quite well in a comparative study of several
methods (Finney 1950).
This method uses moving averages on the proportion of responses at each
stimulus intensity level followed by interpolations to arrive at an estimation of the
threshold. For an agreed small integer j (Thompson suggested j = 3 as a
reasonable span for the moving average), calculate a moving average PI' =
( P , + P , + , +...+PI+,,)/j and XI * =(X , +X,+l +,..+XI+,., )/j. Then seek two
consecutive PI*, one either side of 0.5, from which a liner interpolation can
estimate threshold as a value of corresponding to P*=O.5.
The advantages of this method are that it is nonparametric, relatively simple
to calculate and it can produce an estimate when there are as few as two stimulus
intensity levels for two subjects each. Disadvantages of the method are that only
the threshold and its approximate standard error can be computed, and that all
stimulus intensity levels must be equally spaced on a geometric scale.
The method has been a standard procedure in some fields, e.g., the
environmental protection field.

The Up-and-Down Method

This method was first suggested by Dixon and Mood (1948). The main
difference between this method and the other methods discussed is its experiment
design. In the up-and-down design, only one object is tested at a time. Starting
at a level about where a threshold is expected, the test level is moved up one level
after each nonresponse, and down one level after each response. The experiment

140

I . BI and D.M. ENNIS

is concluded after a specified number of trials.

The experimental design of this method is the same as that of a variant of the
method of limits, also called the up-and-down method (Cornsweet 1962).
Cornsweets up-and-down method is a direct sensitivity test method. In this
method, the threshold is taken as the average of the transition points. The Dixon
and Moods up-and-down method is an indirect sensitivity test method. In this
method, the threshold is estimated by a special statistical method. We discuss
only the Dixon and Moods up-and-down method here.
The method assumes a normal distribution of tolerance. The estimator of
threshold is m = &+d(A/N-OS). The estimator of the standard error is s
= 1.62d{NB-A2)/2\rz+0.029). Where X, is the lowest level at which a response
occurred; N = Inl is the total number of responses in all tests; n, is the number
of responses at a particular stimulus level: d is the distance between two
successive levels; A = xin, and B = Cin,. The standard errors of estimators of
m and s are s,,, = Gs/JN; s,= HsIJN. The values of G and H can be determined
on the basic of the corresponding values of d/s from a special figure (Dixon and
Mood 1948). The up-and-down method can also estimate other percentiles.
The greatest advantage of the method is that for a given degree of accuracy
this method will require fewer tests than most other methods. The saving in the
number of tests may be of the order of 30 to 40% (Dixon and Massey 1957).
However, the experimental design for this method is more complex than that
of other methods. The selection of intervals of stimulus intensity levels and the
beginning stimulus intensity are important to the accuracy of the results. The upand-down method is good only for estimation of the 50th percentile. As Kalish
(1990) indicated: A characteristic of these designs is that they strive to produce
sequences of runs at dose level that are closer and closer to LD50. Consequently,
they may not be very good designs for estimation of the overall shape of the doseresponse curve (other than in the neighborhood of LD50). When we use the upand-down method to estimate a threshold and the rn-AFC method is used, in fact,
we determine the Pth percentile rather than the 50th percentile as a threshold,
where P= llrn+0.5(1-l/m), because we can not use Abbotts formula
[P=C+P(l-G), where P is an observed rate, P is an estimated rate above
chance, C is a background rate, C= llm in a rn-AFC procedure] to correct the test
data which contains a guessing factor before calculation of the threshold. It seems
that the up-and-down method only applies to sensitivity experiments, such as drop
weight impact sensitivity (the method is a standard test method in such an area
(see, ASTME E-27 1984)), in which the responses do not involve a guessing
factor. The method does not apply to determination of sensory threshold, in
which the rn-AFC procedures are used, unless it is modified.

SENSORY THRESHOLDS

141

SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN STATISTICAL, METHODS

FOR ESTIMATING THRESHOLD
Some new statistical methods for estimation of threshold have been developed
in the past two decades. The major emphases of research on this area are
development of statistical methods which are more robust, i.e., minimal
assumptions on the tolerance distribution, and can estimate the entire
psychometric function or dose-response curve.
Many early biologists and psychologists had a preference for parametric
analysis methods because they thought the methods were robust enough and the
methods could give the information for the entire curve.
Hamilton (1977, 1979) conducted simulation studies to compare the
performances of several threshold estimation procedures. He found that estimates
of threshold based on the probit or logit models have some deficiencies which
have not previously been described to biologists. These deficiencies are
sufficiently important that methods based on the probit and logit models should
probably not be used for routine analysis of an extended series of bioassay
experiments. One of the inadequacies of some popular parametric methods for
estimating the threshold is that the methods are not robust enough. If the wrong
model is assumed for the curve, the maximum likelihood and minimum chisquared estimators can perform quite poorly. The iterations may not converge,
or the iterations may converge to different values.
Knowing that the classical parametric procedures cannot fit well for doseresponse curves in many situations, many authors proposed numerous alternative
statistical models. Some authors abandoned parametric methods in favor of
nonparametric methods. Some authors proposed generalized parametric models
(see, e.g. Stukel 1988, Williams 1982 for a review). Of the main new procedures,
two types of parametric models and three nonparametric methods are outlined
here.

The Generalized Probit and Logit Models

Prentice (1976) proposed a four parameter class of models. In addition to
location and scale quantities the model includes two shape parameters that
essentially index skewness and heaviness of tales of the dose-response curve. The
classical probit and logit and some other models are special cases of the
generalized model. The generalized model can handle many nonstandard
situations.

J. BI and D.M. ENNIS

142

The model is given by P(X) =jf(w)dw, where P is the choice probability,

X represents dose level, y = (X - i)/u, f(w)= exp (wm,)(l - exp w)-("1+"2)/ p

(m,, -), p denotes a beta function. The model degrades to a logistic model
when m, = Q = 1 while it converges to a normal distribution as m I , m, + m.
Two convenient tree-parameter models are obtained by setting either m, or m, to
1. If m, = 1, one obtains P(X) = {exp y/(l + exp y))"~;if m, = 1, one obtains
P(X) = 1- [exp (-y)/{ 1+exp(-y)}]"i. The Newton-Raphson iteration procedure
can be used to estimate the parameters of p , u, m, and/or 4 with the
corresponding asymptotic covariance matrix.
The generalized model takes into account simultaneously the symmetric and
asymmetric departures from the standard model and it is particularly useful for
the estimation of extreme percentage points. The difficulty with the model is
computation of maximum likelihood estimates especially for the four parameter
general model.
The Dose-Response Model Based on the Beta-Binomial Distribution
All the classical methods for estimation of threshold are based on the
assumption that the responses at each of the dosage steps follow a binomial
distribution with one parameter, i.e., only one source of variability. But the
assumption is not always held. For example, for an estimate of a population
threshold, the pooling data have at least two sources of variation, Le., interperson and intra-person. In this situation, the variation in the pooling data is
larger than that in a binomial distributed data. The phenomenon is known as
overdispersion (Cox 1983; Anderson 1988). For the overdispersed binomial data
we cannot use the classical models, e.g., probit or logit methods to fit the doseresponse curve and to estimate threshold because the methods will give too
narrow confidence limits. A beta-binomial (BB) distribution is an alternative
model to fit the overdispersed binomial data.
The BB distribution is a compound distribution of the beta and the binomial
distributions. It is obtained when the parameter p in the binomial distribution is
assumed to follow a beta distribution with parameters a and b. The probability
function of the beta-binomial distribution is:

[J
TI

('1'

r(a+x)r(b+n-x)r(a+b)
r(a + b + a)r(a)r(b)

were r(.)denotes the gamma function a > 0, b > 0, x = 0, 1, ..., n. Here x

is the number of choices of a particular type out of n. It is convenient to
reparameterize to p = a/(a+b), 8 = l/(a+b) because parameters p and 8 are
more meaningful. p is the mean of the binomial parameter p and 8 is a scale

SENSORY THRESHOLDS

143

parameter which measures the variation of p.

Segreti and Munson (1981), Kupper et al. (1986) and Williams (1986)
presented a method for estimating the median lethal dose and its confidence
intervals based on the BB distribution. Suppose we want to estimate a population
threshold for a specified population. m persons are randomly selected from the
population; t dosage steps are used and n tests for each person at each of the
dosage steps are conducted. Let X, represent the number of correct responses
(above chance) for thejth person at the ith dosage step. Assume that X,, follows
a binomial distribution for that person at that dosage step. Assuming that the
sensitivity of persons at each of the dosage steps, indexed by the proportions of
correct responses, is a variable following a beta distribution, then
follows a
beta-binomial distribution. The log ldcelihood in terms of p and 8 is given by

x,

logL

4, -1

)I,,

-x,, -I

11 C l o g ( p , + r e , > + C
I=]

Ill,

,=I

I$

log(l-p, + r e , ) - C l o g ( l + r B , ) ,
r=O

r=O

r=O

-I

where the constant is ignored.

The general form of dose-response model is
P,= [1 +exp(-P, -

PI log 4WV

where Po and PI are regression parameters; log d , is log dose at the ith dosage
step. The Newton-Raphson procedure can be used to get the maximum likelihood
estimates of parameters , Po, PI and 8 and the covariance matrix of Po, PI, and
8 . Then the log LD,, is estimated from log LD 5o =
. The confidence
intervals for log LD,, with confidence probability 1-a,is given by the set of x
satisfying M(xo) <z2., where

-Po@,

WX,)

=(Po+xoPI)2(v,,+2x,v,,

,,

+X02VJL

and z2, is the upper a point of x2 with 1 degree of freedom, vII is the variance of
vZ2is the variance of P, and vI2 is the covariance of Po and P I .

Po,

The Trimmed Spearman-Karber Method

This is a robust version of the Spearman-Karber method first used by
Hamilton (1977, 1979) in his simulation studies.
The Spearman-Karber estimator is an efficient, consistent estimator of the

144

J. BI and D.M. ENNIS

threshold when the tolerance distribution is symmetric which is a rather strong

assumption. But empirical evidence in toxicology suggests that asymmetric
distributions are common because the proportion of animals that are sensitive to
the toxic effects of a chemical at low doses is greater that the proportion of
animals that are resistant to its toxic effects at high doses. The situation is
perhaps the same in sensory analysis. The trimmed Spearman-Karber estimator
attempts to eliminate the effects of the tails of the asymmetric tolerance
distribution.
Miller and Halpern (1980) studied the theoretical structure and large sample
properties of some procedures for the estimation of thresholds, and concluded, on
the basis of a comparison of the asymptotic variances, that the trimmed
Spearman-Karber method is excellent for use in estimating threshold.
The estimation procedure of the trimmed Spearman-Karber method involves
four steps. The first step is to adjust PI, ..., Pk if these response proportions do
not satisfy monotone nondecreasing order. The second step is to plot the points
and connect them with straight lines. The third step is to trim off the upper
percent and lower percent of the polygon through the change of ordinate scale.
The fourth and final step is to calculate the threshold associated with the
cumulative relative frequency polygon formed in step 3.
The Kernel Method

Kernel estimate is a modern nonparametric regression technique. Copas

(1983) first used kernel estimators for thresholds. Staniswalis and Cooper (1986)
proposed a kernel method for dose-response curves. Kappenman (1987)
independently proposed an estimator of the LD,, based on kernel estimators.
Muller and Schmitt (1988) studied further the method. The kernel method may
be viewed as a generalization of Thompsons moving average method.
In contrast to the probit method produced previously, or any other parametric
model, kernel estimators are consistent for a much larger class of functions,
which are only required to satisfy some smoothness assumptions. Consistency
under minimal assumptions is an asset in complex sensitivity test situations, where
parametric modeling often is difficult ta justify because of a lack of substantial
knowledge.
For the estimation of the threshold, kernel estimates and corresponding
confidence intervals can be an alternative to probit or other parametric methods,
especially if one suspects a complicated or nonsigmoid form of the dose-response
curve. Kernel estimates can be applied without or, in the monotonized version,
with the assumption of monotonicity.
For the estimation of the ED,, @ is a small faction), the kernel method can
be extremely superior to the probit method if the log ED,, is within the range
of doses of the experiment.

SENSORY THRESHOLDS

145

The main advantage of the kernel method is its flexibility, which makes it a
valuable exploratory tool in sensitivity tests.

The Sigmoidally Constrained Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method

Another nonparametric and promising method is the sigmoidally constrained
maximum likelihood estimation method. It was proposed by Schmoyer (1984)
and devised for the estimation of the whole curve.
The assumption is that the dose-response curve is sigmoid (S-shaped) as well
as nondecreasing.
Because doses that would cause even a tiny proportion of humans to respond
in the specified way are usually of concern, the nature of the dose-response curve
at very small values of dose is often of particular interest. This method can solve
the problem well.
Drake (1975) developed a computer program, SIGMPLOT, to fit sigmoidalshaped dose-response curve. Powers and Ware (1976) used the method for the
analysis of sensory threshold data. The difference between Drakes procedure
and Schmoyers method is that the former is still based on a normal distribution
while the latter is a nonparametric approach.

SUMMARY
The sensory threshold is defined as a stimulus intensity that produces a
response in half of the trials. The definition of population threshold based on a
single compound sampling population has been discussed. Five classical
procedures for estimating threshold were reviewed. They are the probit, the
logistic, the Spearman-Karber, the moving average and the up-and-down
procedures. The latest developed statistical models for estimating threshold were
outlined. They are the generalized probit and logit models, the dose-response
model based on the Beta-Binomial distribution, the trimmed Spearman-Karber
method, the kernel method and the sigmoidally constrained maximum likelihood
estimation method. A new procedure based on the BB distribution for estimating
population threshold is proposed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the editor and the referees for constructive
comments and suggestions on an earlier manuscript. Significant initial discussions
were provided by Dr. E. Chambers IV and Dr. M. Meilgaard.

146

J. BI and D.M. ENNIS

REFERENCES
ANDERSON, D.A. 1988. Some models for overdispersed binomial data.
Austral. J. Statist. 30(2), 125-148.
ASTM Committee E-18. 1990. Standard definitions of terms relating to sensory
evaluation of materials and products. In Annual Book of A5734 Standards. E253-90. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM Committee E-18. 1991. Standard practice for defining and calculating
individual and group sensory thresholds from forced-choice date sets of
intermediate size. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. E-1432-91.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM Committee E-27. 1984. Standard test method for drop weight impact
sensitivity of solid-phase hazardous materials. In Annual Book of ASTM
Standards. E-680-84. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
BENNETT, B.M. 1952. Estimation of the LD50 by moving averages. J.
Hygiene SO, 157-164.
BENNETT, B.M. 1963. Optimum moving averages for the estimation of median
effective dose in bioassay. J. Hygiene 62, 401-406.
BERKSON, J. 1944. Application of the logistic function to bioassay. J. Am.
Stati. Assoc. 39, 357-365.
BERKSON, J. 1955. Maximum likellhood and minimum x2 estimates of the
logistic function. J. Am. Stati. Assoc. SO, 206-209.
BLISS, C.I. 1934. The method of probits. Sci. 79, 38-39.
BLISS, C.I. 1935a The calculation of the dosage-mortality curve. AM. Appl.
Biol. 22, 134-167.
BLISS, C.I. 1935b. The comparison of dosage-mortality data. AM. Appl. Biol.
22, 307-333.
BLISS, C.I. 1938. The determination of the dosage-mortality curve from small
number. Quart. J. Pharmacol. 11, 192-216.
COPAS, J.B. 1983. Plottingp against x. Applied Statistics 32, 25-31.
CORNSWEET, T.N. 1962. The staircase method in psychophysics. Am. J.
Psychol. 75, 485-491.
COX, D.R. 1983. Some remarks on overdispersion. Biometrika 70(1), 269-274.
DIXON, W.J. and MASSEY, F.J. 1957. Zntroducrion to Staristical Analysis.
McGraw-Hill.
DIXON, W.J. and MOOD, A.M. 1948. A method for obtaining and analyzing
sensitivity data. J. Am. Stati. Assoc. 43, 109-126.
DRAKE, B. 1975. A fortran program, sigmplot, for fitting sigmoid curves to
threshold data and for plotting the result. Chemical Senses and flavor I , 519531.

SENSORY THRESHOLDS

147

ENNIS, D.M. and BI, J. 1998. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for interintra1 variation in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sensory
Studies (In press).
FINNEY, D.J. 1950. The estimation of the mean of a normal tolerance
distribution. Sankhya 20, 341-360.
FINNEY, D.J. 1971. Probit Analysis 3rd Ed., Cambridge University Press.
FINNEY, D.J. 1978. Statistical Method in Biological Assay, Charles Griffin &
Co., Ltd.
HAMILTON, M.A. 1979. Robust estimates of the ED,,. J. Am. Stati. Assoc.
74, 344-354.
HAMILTON, M.A., RUSSO, R.C. and THURSTON, R.V. 1977. Trimmed
Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in
toxicity bioassay. Evir. Sci. & Technol. 11, 714-719.
KALISH, L.A. 1990. Efficient design for estimation of median lethal dose and
quantal dose-response curves. Biometrics 46, 737-748.
KAPPENMAN, R.F. 1987. Nonparametric estimation of dose-response curves
with application to ED,, estimation. J. Stati. Computation & Stimulation 28,
1-13.
KARBER, G. 1931. Beitrag zur kollectiven behandlung pharmakologischer
reihenversuche. Arch. Exp. Path. Pharmak 262, 480-487.
KUPPER, L., PORTIER, C., HOGAN, M. andYAMAMOTO, E. 1986. The
impact of litter effects on dose-response modeling in teratology. Biometrics
42, 85-98.
MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G.V. and CARR, B.T. 1991. Sensory Evaluation
Techniques. 2nd Ed, CRC Press.
MILLER, R.G. and HALPERN, J.W. 1980. Robust estimators for quantal
bioassay. Biometrika 67, 103-110.
MULLER, H.G. and SCHMITT, T. 1988. Kernel and probit estimates in
quantal bioassay. J. Am. Stati. Assoc. 83, 750-759.
NATRELLA, M.G. 1963. Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 91.
PANGBORN, R.M. 1984. Sensory techniques of food analysis. In Food
Analysis: Principles and Techniques, Vol. 1, (D.W. Gruenwedel and J.R.
Whitaker, eds.)
POWERS, J.J. and WARE, G.O. 1976. Comparison of sigmplot, probit, and
extreme-value methods for the analysis of threshold data. Chemical Senses
and Flavor 2, 241-253.
PRENTICE, R.L. 1976. Generalization of the probit and logit methods for dose
response curves. Biometrics 32, 761-768.
SCHMOYER, R.L. 1984. Sigmoidally constrained maximum likelihood
estimation in quantal bioassay. J. Am. Stati. Assoc. 79, 448-453.

148

J. BI and D.M. ENNIS

SEGRETI, A.C. and MUNSON, A.E. 1981. Estimation of the median lethal dose
when responses within a litter are correlated. Biometrics 37, 153-156.
SPEARMAN, C. 1908. The method of right and wrong cases (constant stimuli)
without Gausss formulae. Brit. J. Psychol. 2, 227-242.
STANISWALIS, J.G. and COOPER, V. 1986. Kernel estimates of dose
response. Working Papers, Series 2 1, Virginia Commonwealth University.
(See Biometrics 44,(1988) 1103-1119).
STUKEL, T.A. 1988. Generalized logistic models. J. Am. Stati. Assoc. 83,
426-43 1.
THOMPSON, W.R. 1947. Use of moving averages and interpolation to estimate
median effective dose. I: Fundamental forrnuias, estimation of error, and
relation to other methods. Bacteriol. Rev. 11, 116-145.
WEIL, C.S. 1952. Tables for convenient calculation of median-effective dose
(LD50 or ED50) and instructions in their use. Biometrics 8, 249-263.
WILLIAMS, D.A. 1982. Extra-binomial variation in logistic linear models.
Appl. Statisti. 3I(2), 144-148.
WILLIAMS, D.A. 1986. Interval estimation of the median lethal dose.
Biometrics 42, 641-645.