Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 157-164

  O'Mahony, Michael ^a   Rousseau, Benôit ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b The Institute for Perception   (United States)

Author keywords

Discrimination; Memory; Perceptual variance; Sensory fatigue; Thurstonian

Indexed keywords

BRAIN FUNCTION; CALCULATION; CONSUMER; FOOD PREFERENCE; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; MEMORY; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSORY ANALYSIS; SENSORY DYSFUNCTION; SENSORY STIMULATION; TASTE DISCRIMINATION; THEORY;

EID: 0037349963     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00109-X     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Byer, A. J., & Abrams, D. (1953). A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods. Food Technology, 7, 185-187.
2. Delwiche, J., & O'Mahony, M. (1996). Flavour discrimination-an extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 1-5.
3. Dessirier, J. M., & O'Mahony, M. (1999). 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, 10, 1-8.
4. Ennis, D. M. (1990). Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technology, 44, 114-118.
5. Ennis, D. M. (1993a). A single multidimensional model for discrimination, identification and preferential choice. Acta Psychologica, 84, 17-27.
6. Ennis, D. M. (1993b). The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 353-370.
7. Ennis, D.M. (2001). Personal communication.
8. Ennis, D.M., & Mullen, K. (1986). A multivariate model for discrimination methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 206-219.
9. Ennis, D. M., & O'Mahony, M. (1995). Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1088-1097.
10. Ennis, D. M., Mullen, K., & Frijters, J. E. (1988). Variants of the method of triads: unidimensional Thurstonian models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 25-36.
11. Ennis, J. M., Ennis, D. M., Yip, D., & O'Mahony, M. (1998). Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 51, 205-215.
12. Frijters, J. E. R. (1979). The paradox of discriminatory non-discriminators resolved. Chemical Senses & Flavor, 4, 355-358.
13. 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 Psychologica, 49, 1-16.
14. 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. Journal of Food Science, 47, 139-143.
15. 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. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 176-178.
16. 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. Perception and Psychophysics, 55, 473-477.
17. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
18. Gridgeman, N. T. (1970). A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences. Journal of Food Science, 35, 87-91.
19. Hacker, M. J., & Ratcliff, R. (1979). A revised table of d′ for M-alternative forced choice. Perception and Psychophysics, 26, 168-170.
20. Hautus, M. J., & Irwin, R. J. (1995). Two models for estimating the discriminability of foods and beverages. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 203-215.
21. Huang, Y. T., & Lawless, H. T. (1998). Sensitivity of the ABX discrimination test. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 229-239.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Kim, K. O., Ennis, D. M., & O'Mahony, M. (1998). A new approach to category scales of intensity II. Use of d′ values. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 251-267.
25. Kuesten, C. L. (2001). Sequential use of the triangle, 2-AC, 2-AFC, and same-different methods applied to a cost-reduction effort: consumer learning acquired throughout testing and influence on preference judgements. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 447-455.
26. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: a user's guide. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
27. Masuoka, S., Hatjopoulos, D., & O'Mahony, M. (1995). Beer bitterness detection: testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 295-306.
28. O'Mahony, M. (1972). Salt taste sensitivity: a signal detection approach. Perception, 1, 459-464.
29. O'Mahony, M. (1986). Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical methods and Procedures. New York: Dekker.
30. 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. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 1-47.
31. O'Mahony, M. (1995a). Sensory measurement in food science-fitting methods to goals. Food Technology, 49, 72-82.
32. O'Mahony, M. (1995b). Who told you the triangle test was simple?. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 227-238.
33. O'Mahony, M., & Goldstein, L. (1987). Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: the roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability. Chemical Senses, 12, 425-436.
34. O'Mahony, M., & Odbert, N. (1985). A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures: sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. Journal of Food Science, 50, 1055-1058.
35. 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.
36. O'Mahony, M., Thieme, U., & Goldstein, L. (1988). The warm-up effect as a means of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. Journal of Food Science, 53, 1848-1850.
37. Richardson, M. W. (1939). Multidimensional psychophysics. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 659-660.
38. Rousseau, B. (2001). The β-strategy: An alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 301-318.
39. Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2001). A Thurstonian model for the dual-pair (4IAX) discrimination method. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 1083-1090.
40. Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2002). The multiple dual-pair method. Perception and Psychophysics (in press).
41. Rousseau, B., & O'Mahony, M. (1997). Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 127-146.
42. Rousseau, B., & O'Mahony, M. (2000). Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 457-464.
43. Rousseau, B., & O'Mahony, M. (2001). Investigation of the dual-pair method as a possible alternative to the triangle and same-different tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 161-178.
44. Rousseau, B., Meyer, A., & O'Mahony, M. (1998). Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: comparison with triangle and duotrio methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 149-173.
45. Rousseau, B., O'Mahony, M., & Ennis, D. M. (2001). Simultaneous estimations of multiple sample similarities using a multivariate variant of the duo-trio test. Paper presented at the 4th Rosemary Pangborn Symposium, Dijon, France.
46. 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, 173-184.
47. Stillman, J. A. (1993). Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 190-194.
48. 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.
49. Takagi, M., & Asakura, Y. (1985). Atarashii shikibetsugata kanno Kensa-R-index ho- no jicchi rei. Engineers, 3, 24-28.
50. Tedja, S., Nonaka, R., Ennis, D. M., & O'Mahony, M. (1994). Triadic discrimination testing-refinement of Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis approaches. Chemical Senses, 19, 279-301.
51. Thieme, U., & O'Mahony, M. (1990). 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, 159-176.
52. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
53. Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.