How do the signal detection indices react to frequency context bias for intensity scaling?

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 33-52

  Lee, Hye Seong ^a   Kim, Kwang Ok ^a   O'Mahony, Michael ^b  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035584704     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00289.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44(4), 114-118.
2. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
3. c) to the measure of sensory difference (d′) for the triangular method and the 3-alternative forced choice procedure. J. Food Sci. 47, 139-143.
4. FRIJTERS, J.E.R., KOOISTRA, A. and VEREIJKEN, P.F.G. 1980. Tables of d′ for the Triangular method and 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Percept. Psychophys. 27, 176-178.
5. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J. A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
6. KIM, K.-O., ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. A new approach to category scales of intensity II. Use of d′ values. J. Sensory Studies 13, 251-267.
7. KIM, K.-O. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. A new approach to category scales of intensity I. Traditional versus rank-rating. J. Sensory Studies 13, 241-249.
8. KROEZE, J.H. 1982. The influence of relative frequencies of pure and mixed-stimuli on mixture suppression in taste. Percept. Psychophys. 31, 276-278.
9. LAWLESS, H.T., GLATTER, S. and HOHN, C. 1991. Context-dependent changes in the perception of odor quality. Chemical Senses 16, 349-360.
10. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, D.A. 1991. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
11. MARKS, L.E. 1993. Contextual processing of multidimensional and unidimentional auditory stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. 19, 227-249.
12. McNICOL, D. 1972. A Primer of Signal Detection Theory, George & Allen Unwin Ltd., London.
13. O'MAHONY, M. and HEINTZ, C. 1981. Direct magnitude estimation of salt taste intensity with continuous correction for salivary adaptation. Chem. Senses 6, 101-112.
14. PARDUCCI, A. 1963. Range frequency compromise in judgment. Psychol. Monographs: General and Appl. 77, 1-50.
15. PARDUCCI, A. 1965. Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychol. Rev. 72, 407-418.
16. PARDUCCI, A. 1968. The relativism of absolute judgments. Sci. Amer. 219, 84-90.
17. RANKIN, K.M. and MARKS, L.E. 1991. Differential context effects in taste perception. Chem. Senses 16, 617-629.
18. RISKEY, D.R. 1982. Effects of context and interstimulus procedures in judgments of saltiness and pleasantness. In Problems and Approaches to Measuring Hedonics, (J.T. Kuznicki, A.F. Rutkiewic and R.A. Johnson, eds.) pp. 71-83, ASTM Special Technical Publication #773, Philadelphia.
19. RISKEY, D.R. 1986. Use and abuses of category scales in sensory measurement. J. Sensory Studies 1, 217-236.
20. RISKEY, D.R., PARDUCCI, A. and BEAUCHAMP, G.K. 1979. Effects of context in judgments of sweetness and pleasantness. Percept. Psychophys. 26, 171-176.
21. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H.N.J. 1994a. Contextual effects in the perception of quinine HCl/NaCl mixtures. Chem. Senses 19, 113-123.
22. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H.N.J. 1994b. Sweetness suppression in fructose/citric acid mixtures: A study of contextual effects. Percept. Psychophys. 56, 227-237.
23. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H.N.J. 1995. Contextual effects in difference judgments. Percept. Psychophys. 57, 56-70.
24. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H.N.J. 1996. Cognitive factors affecting taste intensity judgments. Food Qual. Pref. 7, 167-175.
25. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H.N.J. and FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1992. Contextual and sequential effects onjudgments of sweetness intensity. Percept. Psychophys. 52, 243-255.
26. STILLMAN, J. A. 1993. Context effects in judging taste intensity: A comparison of variable line and category rating methods. Percept. Psychophys. 54, 477-484.