Flavour discrimination: An extension of thurstonian 'paradoxes' to the Tetrad method

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 1-5

  Delwiche, Jeannine ^a   O'Mahony, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030529348     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0950-3293(95)00031-3     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Byer, A. J. & Abrams, D. (1953). A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods. Food Technol., 7, (April), 185-7.
2. David, H. A. & Trivedi, M. C. (1962). Pair, triangle and duo-trio tests. Technical Report #55, Dept. Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Inst., Blacksburg, VA.
3. Ennis, D.M. (1993). The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sens. Stud., 8, 353-70.
4. Ennis, D. M. & O'Mahony, M. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol., In press.
5. Frijters, J. E. R. (1979). The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses Flav., 4, 355-8.
6. Frijters, J. E. R. (1981). An olfactory investigation of the compatibility of oddity instructions with the design of a 3-AFC signal detection task. Acta Psychol., 49, 1-6.
7. Frijters, J. E. R. (1982). Expanded tables for conversion of a proportion of correct responses (Pc) to the measure of sensory difference (d′) for the triangular method and the 3-alternative forced choice procedure. J. Food Sci., 47, 139-43.
8. Frijters, J. E. R., Blauw, Y. H., and Vermaat, S. H. (1982). Incidental training in the triangular method. Chem. Sense, 7, 63-9.
9. Frijters, J. E. R., Kooistra, A. & Vereijken, P. F. G. (1980). Tables of d′ for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Percept. Psychophys., 27, 176-8
10. Geelhoed, E. N., MacRae, A. W. & Ennis, D. M. (1994). Preference gives more consistent judgments than oddity only if the task can be modeled as forced choice. Percept. Psychophys., 55, 473-7.
11. Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley, New York.
12. Gridgeman, N. T. (1956). Group size in taste sorting trials. Food Res., 21, 534-9.
13. Gridgeman, N. T. (1970). A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences. J. Food Sci., 35, 87-91.
14. Lockhart E. E. (1951). Binomial systems and organoleptic analysis. Food Technol., 5, 428-31.
15. MacRae, A. W. & Geelhoed, E. N. (1992). Preference can be more powerful than detection of oddity as a test of discriminability. Percept. Psychophys. 51, 179-81.
16. O'Mahony, M. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. Pref. 6, 227-38.
17. O'Mahony, M., Masuoka, S. & Ishii, R. (1994). A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sens. Stud. 9, 247-72.
18. Peryam, D. R. (1958). Sensory difference tests. Food Technol., 12 (May), 231-6.
19. Peryam, D. R. & Swartz, V. W. (1950). Measurement of sensory differences. Food Technol., 4 (Oct), 390-5.
20. Raffensperger, E. L. & Pilgrim, F. S. (1956). Knowledge of the stimulus variable as an aid in discrimination tests. Food Technol., 10, 254-7.
21. Stillman, J. A. (1993). Response selection, sensitivity and taste-test performance. Percept. Psychophys., 54, 190-4.
22. Tedja, S., Nonaka, R., Ennis, D. M. & O'Mahony, M. (1994). Triadic discrimination testing: refinement of Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis approaches. Chem. Senses 19, 279-301.
23. Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol., 38, 368-89.
24. Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev., 34, 273-86.
25. Ura, S. (1960). Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Reports of Statistical Application Research, Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers, 7, 107-19.