Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 465-484

  Kim, Hee Jin ^a   Jeon, Seon Young ^a   Kim, Kwang O K ^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: 33748651866     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00074.x     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. AMMONS, R.B. 1947. Acquisition of motor skill: I. Quantitative analysis and theoretical formulation. Psychol. Rev. 54, 263-281.
2. ANGULO, O., LEE, H-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2006. Sensory difference tests: Overdispersion and warm-up. Food Qual. Prefer. (in press).
3. 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.
4. BADDELEY, A. 1990. Human Memory. Allyn and Bacon, London, England.
5. BARTOSHUK, L.M. 1968. Water taste in man. Percept. Psychophys. 3, 69-72.
6. BARTOSHUK, L.M. 1974. NaCl thresholds in man: Thresholds for water taste or NaCl taste? J. Comput. Physiol. Psychol. 87, 310-325.
7. BARTOSHUK, L.M. 1978. The psychophysics of taste. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 31, 1068-1077.
8. BARTOSHUK, L.M., MCBURNEY, D.H. and PFAFFMANN, C. 1964. Taste of sodium chloride solutions after adaptation to sodium chloride: Implications for "water taste". Science 143, 967-968.
9. 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.
10. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 1999a. The power of sensory discrimination methods used in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 14, 289-302.
11. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 1999b. Beta-binomial tables for replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 14, 347-368.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. DACREMONT, C. and VALENTIN, D. 2004. Mobilization of short-term memory capacity for odors in discriminative tests: Implication for assessors' selection. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 735-742.
15. DACREMONT, C., SAUVAGEOT, F. and DUYEN, T.H. 2000. Effect of assessors expertise level on efficiency of warm-up for triangle tests. J. Sensory Studies 15, 151-162.
16. DELWICHE, J. and O'MAHONY, M. 1996a. Flavour discrimination - An extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Qual. Prefer. 7, 1-5.
17. DELWICHE, J. and O'MAHONY, M. 1996b. Changes in secreted salivary sodium are sufficient to alter taste sensitivity: Use of signal detection measures with continuous monitoring of the oral environment. Physiol. Behav. 59, 605-611.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. ENNIS, D.M. 1988a. Confusable and discriminable stimuli: Comment on Nosofsky (1986) and Shepard (1986). J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 117, 408-411.
22. ENNIS, D.M. 1988b. Multivariate sensory analysis. Food Technol. 42, 118-122.
23. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114-118.
24. 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.
25. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
26. ENNIS, D.M. 2004. Personal communication.
27. ENNIS, D.M. and ASHBY, F.G. 1993. The relative sensitivities of same-different and identification models to perceptual dependence. Psychometrika 58, 257-279.
28. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1985. The effect of dimensionality on results from the triangular method. Chem. Senses 10, 605-608.
29. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1986a. A multivariate model for discrimination methods. J. Math. Psychol. 30, 206-219.
30. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1986b. Theoretical aspects of sensory discrimination. Chem. Senses 11, 513-522.
31. 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.
32. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1992b. Probabilistic psychophysics with noisy stimuli. Math. Soc. Sci. 23, 221-234.
33. ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perf. 5, 1088-1097.
34. ENNIS, D.M., MULLEN, K. and FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1988a. Variants of the method of triads: Unidimensional Thurstonian models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psy. 41, 25-36.
35. ENNIS, D.M., PALEN, J.J. and MULLEN, K. 1988b. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. J. Math. Psychol. 32, 449-465.
36. 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. Psy. 51, 205-215.
37. FRANCIS, M.A. and IRWIN, R.J. 1995. Decision strategies and visual-field symmetries in same-different judgements of word meaning. Memory and Cognition 23, 301-312.
38. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979a. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Sens. Flav. 4, 355-358.
39. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979b. Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic models to three-alternative forcedchoice signal detection theory models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psy. 32, 229-241.
40. 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.
41. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1981a. The excitatory state in the triangular constant method. Psychometrika 46, 219-222.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
46. HACKER, M.J. and RATCLIFF, R. 1979. A revised table of d' for M-alternative forced choice. Percept. Psychophys. 26, 168-170.
47. 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.
48. HAUTUS, M.J. and IRWIN, R.J. 1995. Two models for estimating the discriminability of foods and beverages. J. Sensory Studies 10, 203-215.
49. HERON, W.T. 1928. The warming-up effect in learning nonsense syllables. J. Genet. Psychol. 35, 219-228.
50. IRWIN, R.J. and FRANCIS, M.A. 1995. Perception of simple and complex visual stimuli: Decision strategies and hemispheric differences in samedifferent judgments. Perception 24, 787-809.
51. ISHII, R., KAWAGUCHI, H., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2006. Relating consumer and trained panels' discriminative sensitivities using vanilla ice cream as a medium. Food Qual. Prefer, (in press).
52. 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.
53. KAPLAN, H.L., MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 1978. Tables of d' for variable-standard discrimination paradigms. Behav. Res. Meth. Instrument. 10, 796-813.
54. KIM, K.O. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. A new approach to category scales of intensity I: Traditional versus rank-rating. J. Sens. Studies 13, 241-249.
55. LAU, S., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2004. Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 464-474.
56. LEE, H.-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2004. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13, 841-847.
57. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2nd Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
58. 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.
59. MCBURNEY, D.H. and PFAFFMANN, C. 1963. Gustatory adaptation to saliva and sodium chloride. J. Exp. Psychol. 65, 523-529.
60. MCBURNEY, D.H. and SHICK, T.R. 1971. Taste and water taste of twentysix compounds for man. Percept. Psychophys. 10, 249-252.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. MULLEN, K. and ENNIS, D.M. 1987. Mathematical formulation of multivariate Euclidean models for discrimination methods. Psychometrika 52, 235-249.
65. MULLEN, K. and ENNIS, D.M. 1991. A simple multivariate probabilistic model for preferential and triadic choices. Psychometrika 56, 69-75.
66. 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.
67. NOREEN, D.L. 1981. Optimal decision rules for some common psychophysical paradigms. In Mathematical Psychology and Psychophysiology, Vol 13: Proceedings of the Symposium in Applied Mathematics of the American Mathematical Society and the Society for Industrial Applied Mathematics (S. Grossberg, ed.) pp. 237-279, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
68. O'MAHONY, M. 1973. Qualitative description of low concentration sodium chloride solutions. Br. J. Psychol. 64, 601-606.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 227-238.
72. O'MAHONY, M. and GODMAN, L. 1974. The effect of interstimulus procedures on salt taste thresholds. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 459-465.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2002. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 157-164.
77. O'MAHONY, M., KINGSLEY, L., HARJI, A. and DAVIES, M. 1976. What sensation signals the salt taste threshold? Chem. Sens. Flav. 2, 177-188.
78. O'MAHONY, M., THIEME, U. and GOLDSTEIN, L.R. 1988. The warm-up effect as a measure of increasing the discriminability of sensory difference tests. J. Food Sci. 53, 1848-1850.
79. 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.
80. PFAFFMANN, C. 1954. Variables affecting difference tests. In Food Acceptance Testing Methodology, A Symposium (D.R. Peryam and F.J. Pilgrim, eds.) pp. 4-20, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, DC.
81. ROUSSEAU, B. 2001. The β-strategy: An alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests. J. Sensory Studies 16, 301-318.
82. ROUSSEAU, B. 2004. Relating expert and consumer sensitivities. IFpress 7(2), 2-3. http://www.ifpress.com/pdfs/7-2%20Relating%20Expert%20 and%20Consumer.pdf (accessed December 14, 2004).
83. ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, D.M. 2001. How retasting can improve the power of product testing. IFpress 4(2), 2-3. http://www.ifpress.com/ pdfs/4-2%20How%20Retasting%20Can%20Improve%20t.pdf (accessed December 9, 2001).
84. ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, D.M. 2002. The multiple dual-pair method. Percept. Psychophys. 64, 1008-1014.
85. ROUSSEAU, B. and O'MAHONY, M. 1997. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sensory Studies 12, 127-146.
86. ROUSSEAU, B. and O'MAHONY, M. 2000. Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms. Food Qual. Prefer. 11, 457-464.
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. STILLMAN, J.A. 1993. Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance. Percept. Psychophys. 54, 190-194.
91. 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.
92. THIEME, U. and O'MAHONY, M. 1990. Modifications to sensory difference test protocols: The warmed up paired comparison, the single standard duo-trio and the A-Not A test modified for response bias. J. Sensory Studies 5, 159-176.
93. THUNE, L.E. 1950. The effect of different types of preliminary activities on subsequent learning of paired associate material. J. Exp. Psychol. 40, 423-438.
94. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927a. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.
95. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927b. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 38, 368-389.
96. URA, S. 1960. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Reports of Statistical Application Research, Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers 7, 107-119.
97. VESSEREAU, A. 1965. Les méthodes statistiques appliquées au test des caractères organoleptiques. Ann. Nutr. 19, 103-140.
98. 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.
99. WONG, D.A. 1997. Cognitive strategy of the triangle difference test. MS Thesis, pp 1-118, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.