A predictive model for sensory difference tests accounting for sequence effects

Food Science and Biotechnology

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1052-1059

  Lee, Hye Seong ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Conditional stimulus model; Difference test; Sequence effect; Taste contrast; Thurstonian modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 56249126011     PISSN: 12267708     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Ennis DM. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol.-Chicago 44: 114-118 (1990)
2. Ennis DM. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sens. Stud. 8: 353-370 (1993)
3. rd ed. Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, CA, USA. pp. 7-148 (1988)
4. Lee HS, O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13: 841-847 (2004)
5. Lee HS, O'Mahony M. Difference test sensitivity: Cognitive contrast effects. J. Sens. Stud. 22: 17-33 (2007)
6. nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. pp. 1-138 (2005)
7. O'Mahony M. Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly treatment of response bias, rating, and ranking R-index tests and their relationship to signal detection. J. Sens. Stud. 7: 1-47 (1992)
8. O'Mahony M. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. Prefer. 6: 227-238 (1995)
9. O'Mahony M, Rousseau B. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14: 157-164 (2002)
10. Dessirier JM, O'Mahony M. 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 (1999)
11. Dessirier JM, Siffermann JM, O'Mahony M. Taste discrimination by the 3-AFC method: Testing sensitivity predictions regarding particular tasting sequences based on the sequential sensitivity analysis model. J. Sens. Stud. 14: 271-287 (1999)
12. Masuoka S, Hatjopoulos D, O'Mahony M. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. J. Sens. Stud. 10: 295-306 (1995)
13. O'Mahony M, Goldstein LR. Effectiveness of sensory difference tests sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. J. Food Sci. 51: 1550-1553 (1986)
14. O'Mahony M, Goldstein LR. 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 (1987)
15. O'Mahony M, Odbert N. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50: 1055-1058 (1985)
16. Rousseau B, O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sens. Stud. 12: 127-146 (1997)
17. Rousseau B, Meyer A, O'Mahony M. Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. J. Sens. Stud. 13: 149-173 (1998)
18. Tedja S, Nonaka R, Ennis DM, O'Mahony M. Triadic discrimination testing-refinement of Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis approaches. Chem. Senses 19: 279-301 (1994)
19. Vie A, O'Mahony M. Triangular difference testing: Refinements of sequential sensitivity analysis for predictions for individual triads. J. Sens. Stud. 4: 87-103 (1989)
20. Ennis DM, O'Mahony M. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Human 5: 1088-1097 (1995)
21. Lee HS, O'Mahony M. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18: 369-383 (2007)
22. Rousseau B, Stroh S, O'Mahony M. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Qual. Prefer. 13: 39-45 (2002)