A comparison between two forms of paired comparison test: The hedonic form and the non hedonic form;Une comparaison entre deux formes de l'épreuve par paire : La forme hédonique et la forme non hédonique

Sciences des Aliments

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 289-306

  Sauvageot, F ^a   Rabier, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE BOURGOGNE   (France)

Author keywords

Intensity test; Paired comparison test; Preference test

Indexed keywords

EID: 10044224409     PISSN: 02408813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3166/sda.24.289-306     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. AFNOR, 2000. Analyse sensorielle. Méthodologie. Directives générales pour la réalisation d'épreuves hédoniques en laboratoire d'évaluation sensorielle ou en salle en conditions contrôlées impliquant des consommateurs. XP V09-500.
2. CABANAC M., 1971. The physiological role of pleasure. Science, 173, 1103-1107.
3. DEMBER W.N., 1964. Psychology of perception. London: Holt, Richart & Winston Inc. Cité par LÉVY C., 1998. Elaboration de méthodologies adaptées à l'étude de la dynamique des préférences. Application aux boissons. Thèse de doctorat, université de Bourgogne.
4. DEMBER W.N., 1964. Psychology of perception. London: Holt, Richart & Winston Inc. Cité par LÉVY C., 1998. Elaboration de méthodologies adaptées à l'étude de la dynamique des préférences. Application aux boissons. Thèse de doctorat, université de Bourgogne.
5. o 4, 513-518.
6. GEELHOED H., MAC RAE A. W., ENNIS D., 1994. Preferences gives more consistent judgments than odditiy only if the task can be modelled as forced choice. Percept. Psychophys., 55, 473-477.
7. LÉVY C.M., KÖSTER E. P., 1999. The relevance of initial hedonic judgements in the prediction of subtle food choices. Food Qual. Prefer., 10, 185-200.
8. KÖSTER E.P., COURONNE T., LÉON F., LÉVY C., MARCELINO A.S., 2002. Repeatibiliy in hedonic sensory measurement: a conceptual exploration. Food Qual. Prefer., 14, 165-176.
9. MAC RAE A.W., GEELHOED H., 1992. Preference can be more powerful than the detection of oddity as a test of discriminability. Percept. Psychophys., 51, 179-181.
10. MOJET J., KÖSTER E.P., 1986. Research on the appreciation of three low alcoholic beers. Rapport confidentiel. The Netherlands: Psychological Laboratory, University of Utrecht. Cité par KÖSTER E. P., 2002. The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies. Food Qual. Prefer., 14, 359-373.
11. MOJET J., KÖSTER E.P., 1986. Research on the appreciation of three low alcoholic beers. Rapport confidentiel. The Netherlands: Psychological Laboratory, University of Utrecht. Cité par KÖSTER E. P., 2002. The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies. Food Qual. Prefer., 14, 359-373.
12. NAIM M., STREIM B., KANNER J., PELEG H., 1988. Potential of ferulic acid as a precursor to off-flavors in stored orange juice. J. Food Sci, 53, 500-503 + 512.
13. O'MAHONY M., 1995. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. & Pref., 6, 227-238.
14. O'MAHONY M., THIEME U., GOLDSTEIN L., 1988. The warm-up effect as a means of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. J. Food Sci., 53, 1848-1850.
15. o 920), 253-268.
16. SRENT P., 1992. Pratique des statistiques non paramétriques. Inra éd. (147, rue de l'Université, 75 388, Paris).
17. WOLF FRANDSEN L., DIJKSTERHUIS G., BROCKHOFF P., HOLM NIELSEN J., MARTENS M., 2003. Subtle differences in milk: comparison of an analytical and an affective test. Food Qual. Prefer., 14, 515-526.