Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 457-464

  Rousseau, Benoît ^a   O'Mahony, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Discrimination testing; Memory; Power; Retasting; Sensitivity; Sequences

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034311474     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0950-3293(00)00018-5     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bi, J., & Ennis, D. M. (1998). A thurstonian variant of the beta- Binomial model for replicated difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 461-466.
2. Bi, J., Ennis, D. M., & O'Mahony, M. (1997). How to estimate and use the variance of d' from difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 87-104.
3. Ennis, D. M. (1993). The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 353-370.
4. Ennis, D. M., & Bi, J. (1998). The beta-binomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 389-412.
5. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
6. Hautus, M. J. (1997). Calculating estimates of sensitivity from group data: Pooled versus averaged estimators. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 29, 556-562.
7. Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review, 104, 344-366.
8. Kaplan, H. L., Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1978). Tables of d' for variable-standard discrimination paradigms. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 10, 796-813.
9. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Macmillan, N. A., & Kaplan, H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false- Alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 185-199.
11. O'Mahony, M., Masuoka, S., & Ishii, R. (1994). A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies, 9, 247-272.
12. Rousseau, B. (2000). The β-strategy: An Alternative and Powerful Cognitive Strategy when Performing Sensory Discrimination Tests. Manuscript submitted for publication.
13. Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2000). A Thurstonian Introduction to the Dual-pair Discrimination Method. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. Rousseau, B., & O'Mahony, M. (in press). Investigation of the dual- Pair method as a possible alternative to the triangle and same-different tests. Journal of Sensory Studies.
15. Rousseau, B., Meyer, A., & O'Mahony, M. (1998). Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo- Trio methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 149-173.
16. Rousseau, B., Rogeaux, M., & O'Mahony, M. (1999). Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and τ criteria. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 173- 184.
17. Stillman, J. A., & Irwin, R. J. (1995). Advantages of the same-different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 261-272.
18. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
19. Versfeld, N. J., Dai, H., & Green, D. M. (1996). The optimum decision rules for the oddity task. Perception and Psychophysics, 58, 10- 21.
20. Wickelgren, W. A. (1968). Unidimensional strength theory and component analysis of noise in absolute and comparative judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 5, 102-122.