Difference test sensitivity: Cognitive contrast effects

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 17-33

  Lee, H S ^a,b   O'Mahony, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846255030     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2007.00092.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. ALLISON, A.-M. and WORK, T. 2004. Fiery and frosty foods pose challenges in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 58, 32-37.
2. ALLISON, A.-M. A., CHAMBERS, E. IV, MILLIKEN, G.A. and CHAMBERS, D.H. 1999. Effects of interstimulus rinsing and time on measurements of capsaicin heat in tomato salsa. J. Sensory Studies 14, 401-414.
3. BARTOSHUK, L.M. 1974. NaCl thresholds in man: Thresholds for water taste or NaCl taste? J. Comp. Physiol. Psych. 87, 310-325.
4. BARTOSHUK, L.M. 1976. Taste quality. In Appetite and Food Intake: Report of the Dahlem Workshop on Appetite and Food Intake, Berlin 1975, Dec 8-12, Life Science Report 2. (T. Silverstone, ed.) pp. 229-243, Abakon Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, Germany.
5. BARTOSHUK, L.M. 1978. The psychophysics of taste. Amer. J. Clin. Nutr. 31, 1068-1077.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 2001a. Statistical models for the A-Not A method. J. Sensory Studies 16, 215-237.
9. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 2001b. The power of the "A"-"Not A" method. J. Sensory Studies 16, 343-359.
10. DESSIRIER, J.M., SIFFERMANN, 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.
11. DOWELL, K.J., CHAMBERS, E. IV, MILLIKEN, G.A. and Chambers, D.H. 2005. Predicting interstimulus intervals between samples for capsaicincontaining salsa with a range of heat levels. J. Sensory Studies 20, 187-199.
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.
13. ENNIS, D.M. 1988. Multivariate sensory analysis. Food Technology 42, 118-122.
14. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114-1.18.
15. ENNIS, D.M. 1992. Modeling similarity and identification when there are momentary fluctuations psychological magnitudes. In Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition, (FG. Ashby, ed.) pp. 279-298, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.
16. ENNIS, D.M. 1.993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
17. ENNIS, D.M. and ASHBY, K.G. 1993. The relative sensitivities of samedifferent and identification models to perceptual dependence. Psychometrika 58, 257-279.
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. 1992. Probabilistic psychophysics with noisy stimuli. Math. Soc. Sci. 23, 221-234.
22. 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.
23. ENNIS, D.M., MULLEN, K. and FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1988a. Variants of the method of triads: Unidimensional Thurstonian models. Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psy. 41, 25-36.
24. ENNIS, D.M., PALEN, J.J. and MULLEN, K. 1988b. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. J. Math. Psychol. 32, 449-465.
25. 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. Psy. 57, 205-215.
26. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1.980. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. HACKER, M.T. and RATCLIFF, R. 1979. A revised table of d' for M-alternative forced choice. Percept. Psychophys. 26, 168-170.
30. JOHNSON, A.J. and VICKERS, Z. 2004. The effectiveness of palate cleansing strategies for evaluating the bitterness of caffeine in cream cheese. Food Qual. Prefer. 75, 311-316.
31. KÖHLER, W. 1923. Zur Rheorie des Sukzessivvergleichs und der. Zeitfehler. Psychologische Forsch 4, 115-175.
32. LEE, H.-S. and O'MAHONY, M. (2007). The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. J. Sensory Studies 75, 369-383.
33. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, CD. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press, New York.
34. 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 70, 295-306.
35. MULLEN, K. and ENNIS, D.M. 1991. A simple multivariate probabilistic model for preferential and triadic choices. Psychometrika 56, 69-75.
36. 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.
37. O'MAHONY, M. 1972. Salt taste sensitivity: A signal detection approach. Perception 7, 459-464.
38. O'MAHONY, M. 1974. Taste adaptation: The case of the wandering zero. J. Food Technol. 9, 1-12.
39. 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.
40. O'MAHONY, M. 1986. Sensory adaptation. J. Sensory Studies 7, 237-258.
41. MAHONY, M. and GODMAN, L. 1974. The effect of interstimulus procedures on salt taste thresholds. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 459-465.
42. O'MAHONY, M. and GOLDSTEIN, L.R. 1986. Effectiveness of sensory difference tests sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. J. Food Sci. 57, 1550-1553.
43. 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 subadaptirig signal detectability. Chem. Senses 72, 425-436.
44. O'MAHONY, M. arid ODBERT, N. 1985. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50, 1055-1058.
45. O'MAHONY, M. arid ROUSSEAU, B. 2002. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 157-164.
46. O'MAHONY, M., KINGSLEY, I,., HARJI, A. and DAVIES, M. 1976. What sensation signals the salt taste threshold? Chem. Senses Flav. 2, 177-188.
47. OSGOOD, C.E. 1958. Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
48. ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, D.M. 2002. The multiple dual-pair method. Percept. Psychophys. 64, 1008-1014.
49. ROUSSEAU, B. and O'MAHONY, M. 1997. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sensory Studies 12, 127-146.
50. 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.
51. URA, S. 1960. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Rep. Stat. Appl. Res. Jap. Un. Sci. Eng. 7, 107-119.
52. 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.