Thurstonian models and variance II: Experimental confirmation of the effects of variance on thurstonian models of scaling

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 485-504

  Kim, Hee Jin ^a   Kim, Kwang O K ^a   Jeon, Seon Young ^a   Kim, Jung M I ^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: 33748645313     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00079.x     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. AVANCINI DE ALMEIDA, T.C., CUBERO, E. and O'MAHONY, M. 1999. Same-different discrimination tests with interstimulus delays up to one day. J. Sensory Studies 14, 1-18.
2. BARTOSHUK, L.M. 1980. Sensory analysis of the taste of NaCl. In Biological and Behavioral Aspects of Salt Intake, (M.R. Kare, M.J. Fregly and R.A. Bernard, eds.) pp. 83-98, Academic Press, New York, NY.
3. BARTOSHUK, L.M., MCBURNEY, D.H. and PFAFFMANN, C. 1964. Taste of sodium chloride solutions after adaptation to sodium chloride: Implications for the "water taste". Science 143, 967-968.
4. 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.
5. BRAUN, V., ROGEAUX, M., SCHNEID, N., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2004. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Qual. Prefer. 75, 501-507.
6. BROWN, J. 1974. Recognition assessed by rating and ranking. Br. J. Psychol. 65, 13-22.
7. CLARKE-CARTER, D. 2003. Effect size: The missing piece in the jigsaw. The Psychologist 16, 636-638.
8. COHEN, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
9. 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.
10. DESSIRIER, J-M and 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 Qual. Prefer. 10, 51-58.
11. DESSIRIER, J.M., SIEFFERMANN, J.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1999. Taste discrimination by the 3-AFC method: Testing sensitivity predictions regarding particular tasting sequences based on the sequential sensitivity analysis model. J. Sensory Studies 14, 271-287.
12. ELLIOTT, P.B. 1964. Tables of d′. In Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Obervers: Contemporary Readings (J.A. Swets, ed.) pp. 651-684, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
13. ENNIS, D.M. 1988a. Confusable and discriminable stimuli: Comment on Nosofsky (1986) and Shepard (1986). J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 777, 408-411.
14. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114-118.
15. ENNIS, D.M. 1992. Modeling similarity and identification when there are momentary fluctuations in psychological magnitudes. In Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition (F.G. Ashby, ed.) pp. 279-298, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
16. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
17. ENNIS, D.M. 1999. Thurstonian models for intensity ratings. IFpress 2(3), 2-3. http://www.ifpress.com/pdfs/2-3%20Thurstonian%20Models%20for%20Inte.pdf (accessed December 19, 1999).
18. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1985. The effect of dimensionality on results from the triangular method. Chem. Senses 10, 605-608.
19. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1986a. A multivariate model for discrimination methods. J. Math. Psychol. 30, 206-219.
20. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1986b. Theoretical aspects of sensory discrimination. Chem. Senses 11, 513-522.
21. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1992a. A general probabilistic model for triad discrimination, preferential choice, and two-alternative identification. In Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition (F.G. Ashby, ed.) pp. 115-122, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
22. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1992b. Probabilistic psychophysics with noisy stimuli. Math. Soc. Sci. 23, 221-234.
23. ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 5, 1088-1097.
24. ENNIS, D.M., MULLEN, K. and FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1988a. Variants of the method of triads: Unidimensional Thurstonian models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 41, 25-36.
25. ENNIS, D.M., PALEN, J.J. and MULLEN, K. 1988b. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. J. Math. Psychol. 32, 449-465.
26. ENNIS, J.M., ENNIS, D.M., YIP, D. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 51, 205-215.
27. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979a. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses Flav. 4, 355-358.
28. 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. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 32, 229-241.
29. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1980. Three-stimulus procedures in olfactory psychophysics: An experimental comparison of Thurstone-Ura and three-alternative forced-choice signal detection theory. Percept. Psychophys. 28, 390-397.
30. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1981a. The excitatory state in the triangular constant method. Psychometrika 46, 219-222.
31. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1981b. An olfactory investigation of the compatibility of oddity instructions with the design of a 3-AFC signal detection task. Acta Psychol. 49, 1-16.
32. 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.
33. FRIJTERS, 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.
34. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detecting Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
35. HACKER, M.J. and RATCLIFF, R. 1979. A revised table of d′ for M-alternative forced choice. Percept. Psychophys. 26, 168-170.
36. HALPERN, B.P. 1986. What to control in studies of taste. In Clinical Measurement of Taste and Smell (H.L. Meiselman and R.S. Rivlin, eds.) pp. 126-153, Macmillan, New York, NY.
37. JEON, S.Y., O'MAHONY, M. and KIM, K.O. 2004. A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols. J. Sensory Studies 19, 49-66.
38. KAPENGA, J.A., DE DONCKER, E., MULLEN, K. and ENNIS, D.M. 1987. The integration of the multivariate normal density function for the triangular method. In Numerical Integration (G. Fairweather, ed.) pp. 321-328, D. Reidl Publ. Co., Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
39. 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.
40. KIM, K.O., ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. A new approach to category scales of intensity U: Use of d' values. J. Sensory Studies 13, 251-267.
41. KIM, H-J., JEON, S-Y., KIM, K-O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2006. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance. J. Sensory Studies (in press).
42. KOO, T.-Y., KIM, K.O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2002. Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: Magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (Green scale). J. Sensory Studies 17, 177-192.
43. LEE, H-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2004. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13, 841-847.
44. LEE, H.-J., KIM, K.O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2001. Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales of intensity. J. Sensory Studies 16, 327-342.
45. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2nd Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
46. 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.
47. METCALF, K.L. and VICKERS, Z.M. 2002. Taste intensities of oil-in-water emulsions with varying fat content. J. Sensory Studies 17, 379-390.
48. MOSTELLER, F. 1951a. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Psychometrika 16, 3-9.
49. MOSTELLER, F. 1951b. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: II. The effect of an aberrant standard deviation when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika 16, 203-206.
50. MOSTELLER, F. 1951c. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: III. A test of significance for paired comparisons when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed. Psychometrika 16, 207-218.
51. MULLEN, K. and ENNIS, D.M. 1987. Mathematical formulation of multivariate Euclidean models for discrimination methods. Psychometrika 52, 235-249.
52. MULLEN, K. and ENNIS, D.M. 1991. A simple multivariate probabilistic model for preferential and triadic choices. Psychometrika 56, 69-75.
53. MULLEN, K., ENNIS, D.M., DE DONCKER, E. and KAPENGA, J.A. 1988. Models for the duo-trio and triangular methods. Biometrics 44, 1169-1175.
54. NONAKA, R. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Comparison of flowise and sipwise methods of tasting. J. Sensory Studies 10, 249-259.
55. O'MAHONY, M. 1973. Qualitative description of low concentration sodium chloride solutions. Br. J. Psychol. 64, 601-606.
56. O'MAHONY, M. 1979. Salt taste adaptation: The psychophysical effects of adapting solutions and residual stimuli from prior tastings on the taste of sodium chloride. Perception 8, 441-476.
57. 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.
58. O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 227-238.
59. O'MAHONY, M. and GOLDSTEIN, L.R. 1986. Effectiveness of sensory difference tests: Sequential Sensitivity Analysis for liquid food stimuli. J. Food Sci. 51, 1550-1553.
60. O'MAHONY, M. and GOLDSTEIN, L.R. 1987. Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: The roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability. Chem. Senses 12, 425-436.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2002. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 157-164.
64. O'MAHONY, M. and WINGATE, P. 1974. The effect of interstimulus procedures on salt taste intensity functions. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 494-502.
65. O'MAHONY, M., KINGSLEY, L., HARJI, A. and DAVIES, M. 1976. What sensation signals the salt taste threshold? Chem. Senses 2, 177-188.
66. 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.
67. PARK, J.Y., JEON, S.Y., O'MAHONY, M. and KIM, K.O. 2004. Induction of scaling errors. J. Sensory Studies 19, 261-271.
68. 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.
69. 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. Prefer. 10, 173-184.
70. ROUSSEAU, B., STROH, S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2002. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Qual. Prefer. 13, 39-45.
71. STILLMAN, J.A. 1993. Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance. Percept. Psychophys. 54, 190-194.
72. 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.
73. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927a. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.
74. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927b. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 38, 368-389.
75. URA, S. 1960. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Reports of statistical application research. Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers 7, 107-119.
76. VESSEREAU, A. 1965. Les méthodes statistiques appliquees au test des caractères organoleptiques. Ann. Nutr. Aliment. 19, 103-140.
77. VIÉ, A. and O'MAHONY, M. 1989. Triangular difference testing: Refinements of sequential sensitivity analysis for predictions for individual triads. J. Sensory Studies 4, 87-103.