Spring 2013 ● Issue 16(1)

IN THIS ISSUE

Technical Report

When Are Two Products Close Enough to be Equivalent?

A persistent dilemma in comparing products is to know when the difference between them becomes

consumer relevant ... (pages 3-4)

President's Message ...................................1

Recent Papers & Reports ...........................1

2013 Upcoming Courses .........................1, 2 Advertising Claims Support at The Greenbrier Powerful Framework & Drivers of Liking® Courses in Brussels, Belgium

Details of 2013 Spring Course ............5, 6, 7May 6 - 8, 2013

atTheWestinVerasaHotel,Napa,California

Principles and Tools ofSensory and Consumer Research

Meet the Instructors and Invited Speakers ........................................7

When is close “close enough”? (pgs. 3 & 4 )

Mission Statement:To develop, apply, and

communicate advanced research tools for human perceptual

measurement.

N E W S & E V E N T S

PAGE #

News & Events ................ 1, 2

2013 Ad Claims Course ..... 2

2013 European Course ...... 2

Technical Report .............3, 4

2013 Spring Course .........5, 6

Instructor Bios ..................... 7

President's MessageSpring 2013 Issue 16(1)

TECHNICAL REPORTS:

2013

16(1) When Are Two Products Close Enough to be Equivalent?

2012

15(4) Proper Task Instructions and the Two-out-of-Five Test

15(3) Efficient Representation of Pairwise Sensory Information15(2) Deciphering the Language of Emotions to Develop an Emotion Lexicon

15(1) Reducing Costs with Tetrad Testing

201114(4) Interpreting Applicability Scores

14(3) Illuminating Product Demographic Interactions

14(2) From Many to Few: A Graph Theoretic Screening Tool for Product Developers

14(1) How to Set Identicality Norms for No Preference Data

To download previously published technical reports and papers from our

website, become a colleague at www.ifpress.com

Webinar SeriesBeginning in March, we will be offering a webinar series with a different topic discussed each month. These webinars are 75 minutes in length and the first one, on March 21, is entitled “Advances in Tetrad Testing”. In April, we will have “Introduction to Combinatorial Tools” and in May “Supporting Advertising Claims” . More information about the webinars can be found on our website. If you would like to receive email announcements about upcoming webinars and events, please make sure we have your current email address. You can use “Contact Us” from our website to submit this information.In April, we will be offering “Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles” at The Greenbrier in WV. We had a large response to this course when we offered it last year. We have assembled a very strong scientific and legal team to teach this course and hope that you will consider attending this year.

Best regards, Daniel M. Ennis President, The Institute for Perception

www.ifpress.com mail@ifpress.com

804-675-2980 804-675-2983

7629 Hull Street Road Richmond, VA 23235To Contact Us... PAGE 1

R E C E N T LY P U B L I S H E D PA P E R S :

Jervis, S. M., Ennis, J. M., and Drake, M. A. (2012) A comparison of adaptive choice- based conjoint and choice-based conjoint to determine key choice attributes of sour cream with limited sample size. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27, 451-462.

Garcia, K., Ennis, J. M., and Prinyawiwatkul, W. (2012) A large-scale experimental comparison of the tetrad and triangle tests in children. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27, 217–222.

Ennis, J.M. (2012) Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27, 223–231.

W H AT W E D O :

Client Services: Provide full-service product and concept testing for product development, market research and legal objectives

Education: Conduct internal training, external courses, and online webinars on product testing, sensory science, and advertising claims support

IFPrograms™: License proprietary software to provide access to new modeling tools

Research: Conduct and publish basic research on human perception in the areas of methodology, measurement and modeling

C O U R S E C A L E N D A R :

April 8 - 10, 2013 The Greenbrier - White Sulphur Springs, WV2.5-DAY COURSE: Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles

May 6 - 8, 2013 The Westin Verasa Hotel - Napa, CA3-DAY COURSE: Principles and Tools of Sensory and Consumer Research

June 10 - 14, 2013 The Radisson BLU EU - Brussels, BelgiumCOURSE 1 (2 DAYS): A Powerful Framework for Improved Sensory Measurement

COURSE 2 (2.5 DAYS): Drivers of Liking® and Emotion Mapping

W E B I N A R C A L E N D A R :

Webinarswillbeheldmonthly.Registertoparticipatefromourwebsiteatwww.ifpress.com/webinars.Onlineregistrationandfeepaymentduethedaybeforeparticipation.Completedetailsavailableonourwebsite.Pleasecontactuswithanyquestions.

TOPICS :

March 2013Advances in Tetrad Testing

April 2013Introduction to Combinatorial Tools

May 2013Supporting Advertising Claims

| Introduction & 5 Key Questions… | ASTM Guidelines for Test Protocols| Data & Methods| Sensory Intensity & Preference| Requirements for a Sound Methodology| Choosing the Right Method, Venue & Participants| Analysis – Interpretation & Communication| Test Power & Consumer Relevance| Testing for Equivalence| Equivalence – Learning from Cases| Ratio, Multiplicative, “Up-to” & Count-Based Claims| Case Examples of Ratio & “Up-to” Claims| What to Do with No Difference/Preference Responses

How do you compete effectively in an increasingly challenging adver-tising environment? Drs. Daniel Ennis, John Ennis, and Benoît Rousseau will discuss these issues and topics along with invited speakers from diverse legal backgrounds including (in alpha order):♦ David Bernstein ♦ Nancy Felsten ♦ David Mallen♦ Christopher Cole ♦ Dr. Bruce Isaacson ♦ Lawrence Weinstein♦ Kathleen Dunnigan ♦ Donald Lofty Register soon! April 8 - 10, 2013 ................. Fee: $1,975*________________________________________________* A 25% discount will be applied to each additional registration from the same company* Fee includes all course materials, continental breakfast, break refreshments, lunches, and group dinners at The Greenbrier. Photo Courtesy of The Greenbrier

“How a survey or product test is planned,executed, and interpreted is often the persuasive element

in an advertising claim dispute.”-- Dr. Daniel M. Ennis

A two-and-a-half-day CLE accredited course, Monday - Wednesday, April 8 - 10, 2013 at The Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, WV

N E W S & E V E N T S

PAGE 2

Course fee includes all course material, lunches and refreshments each day, and group dinners. You will also receive access to a free trial version of IFPrograms™ software and a copy of our book,“Short Stories in Sensory and Consumer Science.” Attendees are responsible for their own hotel and travel arrangements. A special room rate is available at the Radisson BLU EU for attendees.

Register online at www.ifpress.com/short-courses(You may hold a place by contacting mail@ifpress.com)

A Powerful frAmework (2 days) .. €750

Drivers of liking® (2.5 days) ......... €950

Register for both courses and save €50 ..€1,650* A 50% discount will be applied to each additional registration from the same company, for the same course* Academic discount available on request

Course RegistrationInstructorsDr. Benoît Rousseau

Senior Vice President,The Institute for Perception

Dr. John M. Ennis Vice President - Research Operations,

The Institute for Perception

Bert Borggreve Consumer Insight Manager,

H.J. Heinz

Pieter Punter Co-Owner and Research Director,

OP&P Product Research

Frank Rossi Associate Director Statistics,

Kraft Foods Group

ATTEND THESE COURSES IN

Brussels, Belgium

JUNE 10 - 14, 2013at the

Radisson BLU EU

For more information and online registration for any of The Institute for Perception courses, please visit www.ifpress.com/short-courses or contact us at mail@ifpress.com

JUNE 10 - 11, 2013

A Powerful Framework ForImproved Sensory MeasurementIn this course you will achieve a deeper understanding of traditional discrimination and rating methods by learning a common framework in which to interpret results across methodologies.

JUNE 12 - 14, 2013

Drivers of Liking® and Emotion MappingLearn to “see” the market from your consumers’ perspective as you develop an understanding of similarity, Drivers of Liking ®, and Landscape Segmentation Analysis®. You will also be introduced to recently developed novel combinatorial tools, which can enhance the use of the TURF technique and guide the optimal selection of products for consumer category appraisals.

When Are Two Products Close Enough to be Equivalent?Benoît Rousseau and Daniel M. Ennis

2013 Issue 16(1)

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T

PAGE 3

Background: A persistent dilemma in comparing products is to know when the difference between them becomes consumer relevant. Since the probability that any two products are exactly the same is zero1, rejecting the null hypothesis that they are identical may not be that informative; an analysis will always result in such rejection provided there is a sufficient sample size2. What is more important to know is whether the products differ by enough for their difference to be consumer relevant3 - establishing this knowledge is an outstanding problem in the sensory and consumer research fields and various methods have been suggested. One method is to benchmark product differences from past tests where it is known that consumers continued to purchase the product even in the presence of variability or change. This method can be employed when products are routinely made in different factories or when blend and flavor modifications have already been introduced without any appreciable loss of sales. Another approach is to link internal panel measurements with consumer hedonic response to the set of differences4. But ideally, it would be useful to have a consumer-based estimate of the average criterion that consumers use to decide whether products are the same or different. In this report we discuss a way of developing this method through the use of same/different judgments.

Scenario: Your company produces a variety of condiments that are used when preparing convenience food such as sandwiches. Your responsibilities involve the qualification of alternative ingredients submitted by your suppliers, as well as the investigation of raw materials that can provide benefits in terms of lower cost or a simplified manufacturing process. You are aware that any ingredient change will result in some level of sensory difference between your gold standard products and their alternatives. You are interested in quantifying the size of that difference and in determining whether consumers would consider a change of that size acceptable. You would like ultimately to develop an action standard for each product category, but business considerations encourage you to focus first on your full fat mayonnaise line of products.

You initially consider conducting research that would link the sensory difference measured with your internal panel to preference expressed by selected groups of regular users of full fat mayonnaise5. However, this approach requires conducting a series of investigations with the need for the size of the underlying differences to be fairly well spread

Table 1. Four possible types of responses from a same-different test.

across the difference continuum. A more direct alternative is to use the same-different method, which contains information about the maximal difference that will still elicit, on average, a “same” response from a selected group of consumers. This information can be inferred from the responses collected from the same and different pair presentations.

Modeling the Same-Different Method: The same-different method involves the presentation of pairs of items, sometimes putatively identical, sometimes different. The task of the subject is to indicate whether he/she thinks that they are the same or different. The data is then recorded as shown in Table 1. A standard statistical analysis con-sists of performing a χ2 test when all measurements are independent, or a McNemar’s test when replicated mea-surements are involved. However, this analysis will only provide information on whether the two products are statistically significantly different, which is highly dependent on the sample size used in the experiment, and will not provide information on the size of the sensory difference.

Figure 1. Thurstonian representation of product differences and criterion.An alternative is to use a Thurstonian model for the same-different task. Now we can estimate the size of the underlying sensory difference between the products as measured by . See Figure 1. Models to estimate have been developed for a multitude of protocols, including the triangle, 2-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) and tetrad tests. However, the same-different method has this particularity that it also allows for the estimation of an additional parameter 6,7,8 namely the decision criterion . Like , is measured in terms of the standard deviation of the products’ underlying perceptual distributions. When a subject evaluates two samples and the distance between the two momentary perceptions is smaller than , the subject answers “same” (Figure 2, Trial 1). If the distance is larger than , the subject answers “different” (Figure 2, Trial 2).

Figure 2. Illustration of “same” and “different” responses based on momentary sample perceptions.

Issue 16(1) 2013

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T

PAGE 4

Data Collection and Estimation of : In order to investigate the size of for the consumers of the full fat version of your mayonnaise product, you plan a study involving four different products, including your current product, with 300 consumers. While mayonnaise is sel-dom tasted on its own, a conservative approach is to evaluate it neat. With four products, a total of ten pairs can be presented. Each respondent receives one of each of the possible pairs, over a two day period (five pairs per day), in a randomized and balanced design. For each of the pairs, the respondent must indicate whether the products are the same or different. Upon completion of the data collection, you compute estimates of (called ), as well as , for each of the six possible product comparisons. The results are shown in Table 2 (values estimated using the IFPrograms™ software). You notice that while the values are quite different across the product pairs (ranging from 0.37 to 1.53), the estimates of are remarkably constant. This illustrates the fact that the size of the difference above which consumers will consider samples as “different” is an internal construct independent of the actual products being evaluated and agrees with previously published results9. Using the data in Table 2, you decide to set your criterion at 0.80 units of , which are perceptual standard deviation units.

Table 2. Estimated and values from the same-different investigation.

Consumer Relevance Criterion: Your experimentation allowed you to establish the size of the difference relevant to your consumers and you plan on using it in future inves-tigations. A value of 0.80 is thus the consumer relevance criterion you would not want an actual product difference to exceed in order to accept an ingredient change.

Your next step is to see how you can use this information in your daily investigations. If you were routinely using consumers, you could simply use the criterion of 0.80. However, you largely use your internal panel to qualify new ingredients and suppliers. Since training can increase sensitivity to product differences through the reduction of perceptual noise10, you need to translate the consumer criterion into your trained panel scale. You have previously established that your internal panelists are more sensitive than your consumers by approximately 40%, which al-lows you to translate the criterion of 0.80 into a of 1.12

(0.80*1.4). Based on this, you confirm that your current effective panel size of 50 (25 panelists replicated) provides you sufficient power (80%) to detect sensory differences corresponding to values equal to 1.12 or greater when using the tetrad test.

Conclusion: Thurstonian modeling of data from the same-different method allowed not only the estimation of the size of the sensory difference, , but also a measure of its consumer relevance, . This information provides a unique insight into the size of the difference that is relevant for a group of subjects, such as the users of a particular product category. Once has been estimated, this value can be used as a reference point against which future results can be assessed. Sensory discrimination programs can also be developed with sample size considerations based on the reference point provided by the estimate of .

References and Notes 1. The probability that a difference on a continuous scale assumes

a particular value is zero.

2. Chew, V. (1977). Statistical hypothesis testing: An academic exercise in futility. Proceedings of Florida State Horticultural Society, 90, 214–215.

3. Ennis, D. (1990). Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technology, 44(4), 114–117.

4. Ishii, R., Kawaguchi, H., O’Mahony, M., and Rousseau, B. (2007). Relating consumer and trained panels’ discriminative sensitivities using vanilla flavored ice cream as a medium. Food Quality and Preference, 18(1), 89–96.

5. Rousseau, B. (2010). Action standards in a successful sensory discrimination program. IFPress, 13(4), 2–3.

6. Macmillan, N., Kaplan, H., and Creelman, C. (1977). The psy-chophysics of categorical perception. Psychological Review,84(5), 452–471.

7. Ennis, D., and Ashby, F. (1993). The relative sensitivities of same-different and identification judgment models to percep-tual dependence. Psychometrika, 58(2), 257–279.

8. O’Mahony, M., and Rousseau, B. (2002). Discrimination test-ing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Quality and Preference,14(2), 157–164.

9. Rousseau, B., Rogeaux, M., and O’Mahony, M. (1999). Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and criteria. Food Quality and Prefer-ence, 10(3), 173–184.

10. Rousseau, B. (2004). Relating expert and consumer sensitiv-ites. IFPress, 7(2), 2–3.

Principles and Tools of Sensory and Consumer

Research

Principles andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andPrinciples andTools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory Tools of Sensory and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer and Consumer

ResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchResearch

Principles and Tools of Sensory and Consumer

Research

Difference testing and rating methodologies have helped guide com-panies through ingredi-ent and process changes for decades. Yet there is no clear consistency in their implementation. For instance…

… Some companies use small internalpanels of 10-15 individuals (sometimes trained, some-times semi-trained), while others use consumers with larger samples sizes.

… Some programs use replicated evaluations while others don’t.

… The triangle and duo-trio methods are the most broadly used discrimination methodologies, but these methods can result in important differences being missed 80% to 90% of the time!

Is there a “correct” approach, and if so, which one is it? Are those methodologies all equivalent in their abilities to provide accurate and actionable information?

And most important, is there an underlying science that helps us optimize our decision making process?

We will begin by answering these questions, so you can select experimental procedures that best fit your budget and research objectives. By attending this course, you will:

● Understand why different sensory methodologies can yield different decisions

● Recognize the importance of test instructions

● Explore the tetrad test as a powerful alternative to the triangle test

● Learn to assess and manage risks in product testing decisions

● Develop standards for consumer-relevant sensory differences

● Connect results of internal panel testing to consumer response

● Establish your experiment’s optimal sample size, including potential replications

Consumerpanel

Internalpanel

Paired Preference

A xB y

NP z

% expressedpreference

Action Standard

d΄

pc

DifferenceTesting

A BA B

A 3-Day Course Held:

May 6 - 8, 2013in Napa,Californiaat The Westin Verasa Hotel

Register for courses online at www.ifpress.com/short-courses PAGE 5

S P R I N G 2 0 1 3 C O U R S E

2-AFC Duo-trio 3-AFC Triangle Tetrad

Req

uire

d sa

mpl

e si

ze

250

200

150

100

50

0

Tools for DifferenceTesting and Ratings

MONDAY (MAY 6, 8am - 4pm) Topics _______________________________ ♦ Difference and similarity testing: m-AFC, triangle, duo-trio, etc. ♦ Discussion of a theory underlying all sensory evaluation methods ♦ Estimating a measure of sensory difference, dꞌ, from discrimination tests; relationship to R-Index ♦ Proportion of discriminators in the population ♦ Establishing sample sizes for accurate measurements ♦ The tetrad test: A cost saving alternative to the triangle test ♦ How to correctly analyze data from replicated tests: Beta-binomial modelsCases _______________________________ ♦ Product differences using m-AFC tests ♦ Ingredient supplier change: Texture using 2-AFC, duo-trio, and triangle ♦ Superiority claim: 2-AFC versus duo-trio ♦ 2-AFC and 2-AC on carbonated water ♦ Fragrance consumer preferences

TUESDAY (MAY 7, 8am - 4pm) Topics _____________________________ ♦ The 5 cornerstones of product testing: α, power, sample size, size of the difference and protocol ♦ How product testing concepts are implemented at Kraft Foods ♦ Measuring the effect of training ♦ Assessing and reducing experimental variance ♦ Differential scale usage and getting dꞌ values from intensity ratings data ♦ Establishing an internal sensory program based on consumer relevant informationCases _____________________________ ♦ Memory and sequence effects ♦ Improving discrimination by allowing retasting ♦ Relating trained panel and consumer sensitivities using vanilla ice cream samples ♦ Establishing a consumer relevant action standard ♦ Generating a dose response relationship using scale ratings

PAGE 6 For more information, visit www.ifpress.com

S P R I N G 2 0 1 3 C O U R S E

W h i le compa n ie s commonly conduct internal testing for product development and routine quality control, there is al-ways a necessity to get consumer input to im-prove the likelihood of product success in the marketplace. An area of active research is understanding consumer needs and expectations, and uncovering a product category’s drivers of liking. Many techniques can be used to that end, but their conclusions will rarely converge. This fact is linked to differences in their respective underlying assumptions.

On Wednesday, we begin by providing a user-friendly overview of several commonly available techniques (just-about-right scaling, factor analysis, internal and external preference mapping) and by comparing them in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.

We then introduce Landscape Segmentation Analysis® (LSA), a technique that takes into account each consumer’s ideal product profile, and contrast LSA with the previously mentioned analytical methodologies. Its many applica-tions, such as uncovering a product category’s drivers of liking, finding optimal product portfolios and their sensory

WEDNESDAY (MAY 8, 8am - 4pm) Topics ________________________________ ♦ Mapping hedonic data ♦ Factor analysis, external preference mapping (EPM) ♦ Introduction to Landscape Segmentation Analysis® (LSA) ♦ How to identify Drivers of Liking®

♦ LSA and internal preference mapping (IPM): the issue of satiety ♦ Portfolio optimization, product optimal profile predictions ♦ Segmentation and demographic map ellipsesCases ________________________________ ♦ EPM on consumer hedonics of low fat cookies ♦ Landscape Segmentation Analysis on beverages ♦ Determining a product’s optimal sensory profile using a market appraisal study ♦ LSA and IPM of 27 category appraisals ♦ Product portfolio optimization for a population with three distinct segments ♦ Blind-branded LSA on Chardonnay wines ♦ Moisturizing properties of soap bar images ♦ Adults’ and children’s food preferences

profiles, measuring the effect of branding or taking into account usage occasions, will be described and illustrated. The techniques will be compared using a variety of re-search and market-based examples.

Principles and Applicationsof Drivers of Liking®

scale ratings

___________________________________ INVITED SPEAKERS __________________________________

Dr. Benoît Rousseau is Senior Vice President at The Institute for Perception. Benoît received his food engineering degree from AgroParisTech in Paris, France and holds a PhD in sensory science and psychophysics from the University of California, Davis. He has conducted extensive experimental research on probabilistic models and has published numerous journal articles as well as several book chapters. Benoît regularly consults with and manages projects for clients in Asia, Latin America, Europe and the USA. In his teaching, Benoît is well known for his effective and user-friendly approach to introducing new ideas.

Dr. John M. Ennis is Vice President of Research Operations at The Institute for Perception. John received his PhD in mathematics from the University of California at Santa Barbara where he conducted post-doctoral studies in the UCSB Department of Psychology. An active researcher, he has published in statistics, mathematics, psychology, and sensory science. John has a strong interest in the widespread adoption of best practices throughout sensory science, serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Sensory Studies, and is chair of the ASTM subcommittee E18.04 - “Fundamentals of Sensory”.

Dr. Michael O’Mahony is Professor and Sensory Scientist in the Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, California. A very entertaining and informative lecturer, Mike is well known for his approach to communicating new concepts to broad audiences. He has published over 100 journal articles in sensory science and is the author of Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical Methods and Procedures. He consults extensively with consumer products companies globally. He holds a PhD in chemistry and psychology from Bristol University, United Kingdom.

Frank Rossi is Associate Director of Statistics at Kraft Foods Group in Glenview, Illinois, where he leads Kraft’s Statistics Center of Excellence. He supports product development efforts for Kraft’s divisions and consults internally with the Operations, Quality and Marketing Research organizations. Frank has also held statistical consulting positions with General Foods Corporation and Campbell Soup Company. He has authored publications on the statistical aspects of product testing. He obtained a BS in mathematics and an MA in statistics from The Pennsylvania State University.

PAGE 7

I N S T R U C T O R B I O S

Principles and Tools of Sensory and Consumer Research

May 6 -8, 2013 (3 days) ............................$1,950*_______________________________________________* A 25% discount will be applied to each additional registration from the same company* Academic discount available on request

COURSE FEE AND ONLINE REGISTRATION:Course fee includes:

● all course materials and a copy of our latest book, “Short Stories in Sensory and Consumer Science”● daily continental breakfast, lunch, and break refreshments● group dinner on Monday evening● three-month free trial of IFPrograms™ software● complimentary live attendance at a monthly IFP webinar of your choice within 3 months of course completion

Register online at www.ifpress.com/short-courses for this course or call 804-675-2980 for more information.

CANCELLATION POLICY: Registrants who have not cancelled two working days prior to the course will be charged the entire fee. Substitutions are allowed for any reason.

LOCATION: The course will be taught at the Westin Verasa Napa hotel, nestled on the riverbank in the heart of downtown Napa and conveniently located within walking distance of many regional wine tasting rooms and renowned restaurants. In the spring, this area begins to attract many visitors, so please make your room reservation as early as possible.

HOTEL RESERVATIONS: Participants must make their own hotel reservations; the cost of hotel accommodation is not included in the course fee. Attendees are eligible for a special room rate of $149 per night (Sun.-Wed.). NOTE: room must be booked by April 12,2013 to receive the reduced rate. To make a reservation, call 1-888-627-7169 and mention The Institute for Perception or reserve a room online using the link found on the course page at www.ifpress.com/short-courses/napa-2013/.

TRANSPORTATION: Nearby interna-tional airports include Oakland (OAK), San Francisco (SFO), and Sacramento (SMF). Helpful ground transportation informa-tion can be found on The Westin website at www.westinnapa.com/transportation.

LIMITED ENROLLMENT: Enrollment is limited to ensure individual attention, so early registration is recommended. You may hold your place by calling 804-675-2980.

The Westin Verasa Napa

1314 McKinstry StreetNapa, California 94559

707-257-1800www.westinnapa.com

_______ WHO SHOULD ATTEND? _______This course has been developed for technical and supervisory

personnel in sensory evaluation, market research, product development, quality assurance, and general management

within consumer product companies.

__________ HANDS-ON ANALYSIS _________Throughout the course, you will use the IFPrograms™ software to perform the analyses demonstrated. You will be introduced to its capabilities and, upon completion of the course, will receive a complimentary trial version (valued at $1,250) accessible through the internet. For a detailed listing of the capabilities of IFPrograms, please visit at www.ifpress.com/software.(valued at $1,250) accessible through the internet. For a detailed listing of the capabilities of IFPrograms, please visit at www.ifpress.com/software.

personnel in sensory evaluation, market research, product development, quality assurance, and general management

within consumer product companies.