Comparison of d′ values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 51-58

  Dessirier, Jean Marc ^a   O'Mahony, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MALUS X DOMESTICA;

EID: 0010038543     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00037-8     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Bi, J., & Ennis, D. M. (1998). A Thurstonian variant of the beta-binomial model for replicated difference tests. Submitted.
2. Bi J., Ennis D.M., O'Mahony M. How to estimate the variance of d′ from difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies. 12:1997;87-104.
3. Bock, R. D., & Jones, L. V. (1968). The measurement and prediction of judgement and choice. San Francisco: Holen-Day.
4. Brown J. Recognition assesed by rating and ranking. British Journal of Psychology. 65:1974;13-22.
5. Buchanan B., Givon M., Goldman A. Mesurement of discrimination ability in taste tests: an empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing Research. 24:1987;154-163.
6. Byer A.J., Abrams D. A comparison of the triangular and two-samples taste-test methods. Food Technology. 7:1953;185-187.
7. Dawson E.H., Dochterman E. A comparison of sensory methods of measuring differences in food qualities. Food Technology. 5:1951;79-81.
8. Ennis D.M. Multivariate sensory analysis. Food Technology. 42:1988;118-122.
9. Ennis D.M. Confusable and discriminable stimuli: Comment on Nosofsky (1986). & Shepard (1986). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 117:1988;408-411.
10. Ennis D.M. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technology. 44:1990;114-118.
11. Ennis, D. M. (1992). Modeling similarity and identification when there are momentary fluctuations in psychological magnitude. In: F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception & cognition, (pp. 279-298). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
12. Ennis D.M. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies. 8:1993;353-370.
13. Ennis, D. M., & Bi, J. (1998). The beta-binomial model: accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. Submitted.
14. Ennis D.M., Mullen K. The effect of dimensionality on results from the triangular method. Chemical Senses. 10:1985;605-608.
15. Ennis D.M., Mullen K. Theoretical aspects of sensory discrimination. Chemical Senses. 11:1986;513-522.
16. Ennis D.M., Mullen K. A multivariate model for discrimination methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 30:1986;206-219.
17. Ennis D.M., Mullen K. Probabilistic psychophysics with noisy stimuli. Mathematical Social Sciences. 23:1992;221-234.
18. Ennis, D. M., & Mullen, K. (1992b). A general probabilistic model for triad discrimination, preferential choice, and two-alternative identification. In: F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception & cognition, (pp. 115-122). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
19. Ennis D.M., O'Mahony M. Probabilistic model for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance. 21:1995;1088-1097.
20. Ennis D.M., Mullen K., Frijters J.E.R. Variants of the method of triads: Unidimensional Thurstonian models. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology. 41:1988;25-36.
21. Ennis D.M., Palen J.J., Mullen K. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 32:1988;449-465.
22. Filipello F. A critical comparison of the two-sample and triangular binomial designs. Food Research. 21:1956;235-241.
23. Francois P., Sauvageot F. Comparison of the efficiency of pair, duo-trio and triangle tests. Journal of Sensory Studies. 3:1988;81-94.
24. Frijters J.E.R. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chemical Senses & Flavor. 4:1979;355-358.
25. Frijters J.E.R. Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic models to three-alternative forced choice signal detection theory models. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology. 32:1979;229-241.
26. Frijters J.E.R. Three-stimulus procedures in olfactory psychophysics: an experimental comparison of Thurstone-Ura and three-alternative forced choice models of signal detection theory. Perception & Psychophysics. 28:1980;390-397.
27. Frijters J.E.R. An olfactory investigation of the compatibility of oddity instructions with the design of a 3-AFC signal detection task. Acta Psychologica. 49:1981;1-16.
28. Frijters J.E.R. The excitatory state in the triangular constant method. Psychometrika. 46:1981;219-222.
29. c) to the measure of sensory difference (d′) for the triangular method and the 3-alternative forced choice procedure. Journal of Food Science. 47:1982;139-142.
30. Frijters J.E.R., Kooistra A., Vereijken P.F.G. Tables of d′ for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Perception & Psychophysics. 27:1980;176-178.
31. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
32. Gridgeman N.T. Taste comparisons: two samples or three? Food Technology. 9:1955;148-150.
33. Gridgeman N.T. Group size in taste sorting trials. Food Research. 21:1956;534-539.
34. Gridgeman N.T. A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences. Journal of Food Science. 35:1970;87-91.
35. Grim A.C., Goldblith S. Some observed discrepancies in application of the triangle test to evaluation of irradiated whole-egg magma. Food Technology. 19:1965;146.
36. Hacker M.J., Ratcliffe R. A revised table of d′ for M-alternative forced choice. Perception & Psychophysics. 26:1979;168-170.
37. Hautus M.J. Correction for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′ Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments & Computers. 27:1995;46-51.
38. Helm E., Trolle B. Selection of a taste panel. Wallerstein Lab. Communications. 9:1946;181-194.
39. Hopkins J.W. Some observations on sensitivity and repeatability of triad taste difference tests. Biometrics. 10:1954;521-530.
40. Hopkins J.W., Gridgeman N.T. Comparative sensitivity of pair and triad flavor intensity difference tests. Biometrics. 11:1955;63-68.
41. Kapenga, J. A., de Doncker, E., Mullen, K., & Ennis, D. M. (1987). The integration of the multivariate normal density function for the triangular method. In: P. Keast, G. Fairweather (Eds.), Numerical Integration, (pp. 321-328.) Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publ. Co.
42. MacMillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. MacRae A.W., Geelhoed E.N. Preference can be more powerful than detection of oddity as a test of discriminability. Perception & Psychophysics. 51:1992;179-181.
44. Masuoka S., Hatjopoulos D., O'Mahony M. Beer bitterness detection: testing Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. Journal of Sensory Studies. 10:1995;295-306.
45. Mosteller F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Psychometrika. 16:1951;3-9.
46. Mosteller F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: II. The effect of an aberrant standard deviation when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika. 16:1951;203-206.
47. Mosteller F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: III. A test of significance for paired comparisons when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika. 16:1951;207-218.
48. Mullen K., Ennis D.M. Mathematical formulation of multivariate Euclidiean models for discrimination methods. Psychometrika. 52:1987;235-249.
49. Mullen K., Ennis D.M. A simple multivariate probabilistic model for preferential and triadic choices. Psychometrika. 56:1991;69-75.
50. Mullen K., Ennis D.M., de Doncker E., Kapenga J.A. Models for the duo-trio and the triangular methods. Biometrics. 44:1988;1169-1175.
51. O'Mahony M. Qualitative description of low concentration sodium chloride solutions. British Journal of Psychology. 64:1973;601-606.
52. O'Mahony M. Salt taste adaptation: The psychophysical effects of adapting solutions and residual stimuli from prior tastings on the taste of sodium chloride. Perception. 8:1979;441-476.
53. O'Mahony M. Sensory adaptation. Journal of Sensory Studies. 1:1986;237-258.
54. O'Mahony M. Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly treatment of response bias, rating and ranking R-index tests and their relationship to signal detection. Journal of Sensory Studies. 7:1992;1-47.
55. O'Mahony M. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Quality & Preference. 6:1995;227-238.
56. O'Mahony M., Goldstein L. Effectiveness of sensory difference tests: Sequential Sensitivity Analysis for liquid food stimuli. Journal of Food Science. 51:1986;1550-1553.
57. O'Mahony M., Goldstein L. Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: The roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability. Chemical Senses. 12:1987;425-436.
58. O'Mahony M., Kingsley L., Harji M., Davies M. What sensation signals the salt taste threshold? Chemical Senses and Flavor. 2:1976;177-188.
59. O'Mahony M., Masuoka S., Ishii R. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies. 9:1994;247-272.
60. O'Mahony M., Odbert N. A comparison of sensory difference procedures: Sequential Sensitivity Analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. Journal of Food Science. 50:1985;1055-1058.
61. O'Mahony M., Thieme U., Goldstein L. The warm-up effect as a means of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. Journal of Food Science. 53:1988;1848-1850.
62. O'Mahony M., Wong S.Y., Odbert N. Sensory difference tests: Some rethinking concerning the general rule that more sensitive tests use fewer stimuli. Lebensmittel -Wissenschaft und- Technologie. 19:1986;93-94.
63. Peryam D.R. Sensory difference tests. Food Technology. 12:1958;231-236.
64. Peyram D.R., Swartz V.W. Measurement of sensory differences. Food Technology. 4:1950;390-395.
65. Pokorny J., Marcín A., Davídek J. Comparison of the efficiency of triangle and tetrade tests for discriminatory sensory analysis of food. Die Nahrung. 25:1981;561-564.
66. Pfaffmann, C. (1954). Variables affecting difference tests. In: D. R. Peryam, F. S. Pilgrim, & M. S. Peterson (Eds.), Food acceptance testing methodology: A symposium, Washington, DC.: Natl. Acad. Sci. - Nat. Res. Council.
67. Rousseau B., O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for flavored yogurts. Journal of Sensory Studies. 12:1997;127-146.
68. Stillman J.A. Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance. Perception & Psychophysics. 54:1993;190-194.
69. Tedja S., Nonaka R., Ennis D.M., O'Mahony M. Triadic discrimination testing: Refinement of Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis approaches. Chemical Senses. 19:1994;279-301.
70. Thieme U., O'Mahony M. Modifications to sensory test protocols: the warmed up paired comparison, the single standard duo-trio and the A-not A test modified for response bias. Journal of Sensory Studies. 5:1990;159-176.
71. Thurstone L.L. Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology. 38:1927;368-389.
72. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review. 34:1927;273-286.
73. Ura S. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Reports of Statistical Application Research, Japanese Union of Scientists & Engineers. 7:1960;107-176.
74. Vessereau A. Les méthodes statistiques appliquées au test des caractères organoleptiques. Annales de Nutrition et d'Alimentation. 19:1965;103-140.
75. Vié A., O'Mahony M. Triangular difference testing: Refinements to Sequential Sensitivity Analysis for predictions for individual triads. Journal of Sensory Studies. 4:1989;87-103.
76. Wasserman A.E., Talley F. A sample bias in the evaluation of smoked frankfurters by the triangle test. Journal of Food Science. 34:1969;99-100.