Investigation of the dual-pair method as a possible alternative to the triangle and same-different tests

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 161-178

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035589337     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00294.x     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. BERLINER, J.E. and DURLACH, N.I. 1973. Intensity perception: IV. Resolution in roving-level discrimination. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 53, 1270-1287.
2. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 1998. A Thurstonian variant of the beta-binomial model for replicated difference tests. J. Sensory Studies 13, 461-466.
3. BI, J., ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1997. How to estimate and use the variance of d' from difference tests. J. Sensory Studies 12, 87-104.
4. BROCKHOFF, P.B. and SCHLICH, P. 1998. Handling replications in discrimination tests. Food Qual. Pref. 9, 303-312.
5. BUCHANAN, B., GIVON, M.M. and GOLDMAN, A. 1987. Measurement of discrimination ability in taste tests: An empirical investigation. J. Market. Res. 24, 154-163.
6. BYER, A.J. and ABRAMS, D. 1953. A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods. Food Technol. 7, 185-187.
7. CUBERO, E., AVANCINI DE ALMEIDA, T. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Cognitive aspects of difference testing: Memory and interstimulus delay. J. Sensory Studies 10, 307-324.
8. DAWSON, E.H. and DOCHTERMAN, E. 1951. A comparison of sensory methods of measuring differences in food qualities. Food Technol. 5, 79-81.
9. DELWICHE, J. and O'MAHONY, M. 1996. Flavour discrimination - An extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Qual. Pref. 7, 1-5.
10. DESSIRIER, J.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. Comparison of d' values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, Sequential Sensitivity Analysis and power. Food Qual. Pref. 10, 1-8.
11. DURLACH, N.I. and BRAIDA, L.D. 1969. Intensity perception: I. Preliminary theory of intensity resolution. J. Acoust. Soc. of Am. 46, 372-383.
12. ELLIOTT, P.B. 1964. Tables of d'. In Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers; Contemporary Readings (J. A. Swets, ed.) pp. 651-684, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
13. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
14. ENNIS, D.M. 1996. Personal communication.
15. ENNIS, D.M. 1998. Personal communication.
16. ENNIS, D.M. and BI, J. 1998. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for intertrial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 13, 389-412.
17. ENNIS, D.M. and BI, J. 1999. The Dirichlet-multinomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated ratings. J. Sensory Studies 14, 321-345.
18. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1986. A multivariate model for discrimination methods. J. Math. Psychol. 30, 206-219.
19. ENNIS, D.M., PALEN, J.J. and MULLEN, K. 1988. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. J. Math. Psychol. 32, 449-465.
20. ENNIS, J.M., ENNIS, D.M., YIP, D. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 51, 205-215.
21. FILIPELLO, F. 1956. A critical comparison of the two-sample and triangular binomial designs. Food Res. 21, 235-241.
22. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979a. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses Flav. 4, 355-358.
23. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979b. Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic models to three-alternative forced-choice signal detection theory models. Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 32, 229-241.
24. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1980. Three-stimulus procedures in olfactory psychophysics: An experimental comparison of Thurstone-Ura and three-alternative forced-choice models of signal detection theory. Percept. Psychophys. 28, 390-397.
25. 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, 139-143.
26. FRUTERS, J.E.R., KOOISTRA, A. and VEREIJKEN, P.F.G. 1980. Tables of d' for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Percept. Psychophys. 27, 176-178.
27. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Wiley, New York.
28. GRIDGEMAN, N.T. 1956. Group size in taste sorting trials. Food Res. 21, 534-539.
29. GRIDGEMAN, N. 1970. A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences. J. Food Sci. 35, 87-91.
30. GRIM, A.C. and GOLDBLITH, S.A. 1965. Some observed discrepancies in application of the triangle test to evaluation of irradiated whole egg magma. Food Technol. 19, 146.
31. HACKER, M.J. and RATCLIFF, R. 1979. A revised table of d' for M-alternative forced choice. Percept. Psychophys. 26, 168-170.
32. HAUTUS, M.J. 1997. Calculating estimates of sensitivity from group data: Pooled versus averaged estimators. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comp. 29, 556-562.
33. HELM, E. and TROLLE, B. 1946. Selection of a taste panel. Wallerstein Lab. Communications 9, 181-194.
34. HOPKINS, J.W. 1954. Some observations on sensitivity and repeatability of triad taste difference tests. Biometrics 10, 521-530.
35. HOPKINS, J.W. and GRIDGEMAN, N.T. 1955. Comparative sensitivity of pair and triad flavor intensity difference tests. Biometrics 11, 63-68.
36. HUANG, Y.T. and LAWLESS, H.T. 1998. Sensitivity of the ABX discrimination test. J. Sensory Studies 13, 229-239.
37. IRWIN, R.J. and STILLMAN, J.A. 1996. Note on the independence of sensitivity and response bias in Detection Theory. J. Sensory Studies 11, 81-84.
38. KAPLAN, H.L., MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 1978. Tables of d' for variable-standard discrimination paradigms. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. 10, 796-813.
39. KINCHLA, R.A. and SMYZER, F. 1967. A diffusion model of perceptual memory. Percept. Psychophys. 2, 219-229.
40. LIGHT, A. 1998. 1998 SED Survey results: Discrimination testing (80). The Institute of Food Technologists.
41. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 1991. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge University Press, New York.
42. MACMILLAN, N.A. and KAPLAN, H.L. 1985. Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychol. Bull. 98, 185-199.
43. MASUOKA, S., HATJOPOULOS, D. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. J. Sensory Studies 10, 295-306.
44. O'MAHONY, M. 1992. Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly treatment of response bias, rating and ranking R-index tests and their relationship to signal detection. J. Sensory Studies 7, 1-47.
45. O'MAHONY, M., MASUOKA, S. and ISHII, R. 1994. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sensory Studies 9, 247-272.
46. O'MAHONY, M. and ODBERT, N. 1985. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures: Sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50, 1055-1058.
47. O'MAHONY, M., THIEME, U. and GOLDSTEIN, L. 1988. The warm-up effect as a means of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. J. Food Sci. 53, 1848-1850.
48. POKORNÝ, J., MARCÍN, A. and DAVÍDEK, J. 1981. Comparison of the efficiency of triangle and tetrad tests for discriminatory sensory analysis of food. Die Nahrung 25, 561-564.
49. ROUSSEAU, B. 2001. The β-strategy: An alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests. Submitted for publication.
50. ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, D.M. 2001. A Thurstonian introduction to the dual-pair discrimination method. In Press.
51. ROUSSEAU, B., MEYER, A. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. J. Sensory Studies 13, 149-173.
52. ROUSSEAU, B. and O'MAHONY, M. 1997. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sensory Studies 12, 127-146.
53. ROUSSEAU, B., ROGEAUX, M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1999. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and τ criteria. Food Qual. Pref. 10, 173-184.
54. STILLMAN, J.A. 1993. Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance. Percept. Psychophys. 54, 190-194.
55. STILLMAN, J.A. and IRWIN, R.J. 1995. Advantages of the same-different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. J. Sensory Studies 10, 261-272.
56. TEDJA, S., NONAKA, R., ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1994. Triadic discrimination testing - Refinement of Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis approaches. Chem. Senses 19, 279-301.
57. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.
58. URA, S. 1960. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Repts. Stat. Applic. Res., Japanese Union Scientists and Engineers 7, 107-119.
59. VERSFELD, N.J., DAI, H. and GREEN, D.M. 1996. The optimum decision rules for the oddity task. Percept. Psychophys. 55, 10-21.
60. WASSERMAN, A.E. and TALLEY, F. 1969. A sample bias in the evaluation of smoked frankfurters by the triangle test. J. Food Sci. 34, 99-100.
61. WICKELGREN, W.A. 1968. Unidimensional strength theory and component analysis of noise in absolute and comparative judgments. J. Math. Psychol. 5, 102-122.