Variants of A Not-A and 2AFC tests: Signal Detection Theory models

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 222-229

  Hautus, M J ^a   van Hout, D ^b   Lee, H S ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b UNILEVER RESEARCH VLAARDINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

2AFC; 2AFCR; A Not A; A Not AR; d ; Difference test; Duo trio; Reminder; SDT; Signal Detection Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149269423     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Braun V., Rogeaux M., Schneid N., O'Mahony M., and Rousseau B. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 501-507
2. David, H. A., & Trivedi, M. C. (1962). Pair, triangle and duo-trio tests. Technical Report 55. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Department of Statistics.
3. Delwiche J., and O'Mahony M. Flavour discrimination - An extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Quality and Preference 7 (1996) 1-5
4. Delwiche J., and O'Mahony M. Changes in secreted salivary sodium are sufficient to alter salt taste sensitivity: Use of signal detection measures with continuous monitoring of the oral environment. Physiology and Behavior 59 (1996) 605-611
5. Dessirier J.M., and 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 Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 51-58
6. Ennis D.M. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technology 44 (1990) 114-118
7. Ennis D.M. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 8 (1993) 353-370
8. Gescheider G.A. Psychophysics: The fundamentals. 3rd ed. (1997), Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey
9. Green D.M., and Swets J.A. Signal detecting theory and psychophysics (1966), John Wiley & Sons, New York
10. Hautus M.J., and Irwin R.J. Two models for estimating the discriminability of foods and beverages. Journal of Sensory Studies 10 (2005) 203-215
11. Hautus M.J., Irwin R.J., and Sutherland S. Relativity of judgements about sound amplitude and the asymmetry of the same-different ROC. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 47A (1994) 1035-1045
12. Hautus M.J., and Lee A.J. The dispersions of estimates of sensitivity obtained from four psychophysical procedures: Implications for experimental design. Perception and Psychophysics 60 (1998) 638-649
13. Hautus M.J., and Lee A.J. Estimating sensitivity and bias in a yes/no task. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 59 (2006) 257-273
14. Huang Y.T., and Lawless H.T. Sensitivity of the ABX discrimination test. Journal of Sensory Studies 13 (1998) 229-239
15. Lau S., O'Mahony M., and Rousseau B. Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination. Perception and Psychophysics 66 (2004) 464-474
16. Lawless H.T., and Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices (1998), Chapman & Hall, NY
17. Lee H.-S., and O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Science and Biotechnology 13 (2004) 841-847
18. Lee H.-S., and O'Mahony M. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 369-383
19. Lee H.-S., and O'Mahony M. Difference test sensitivity: Cognitive contrast effects. Journal of Sensory Studies 22 (2007) 17-33
20. Lee H.-S., van Hout D., and Hautus M. Comparison of performance in the A-Not A, 2-AFC, and same-different tests for the flavor discrimination of margarines: The effect of cognitive decision strategies. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 920-928
21. Lee H.-S., van Hout D., Hautus M., and O'Mahony M. Can the same-different test use a beta criterion as well as a tau criterion?. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 605-613
22. Lee H.-S., van Hout D., and O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests for margarine: A comparison of R-indices derived from ranking and A-Not A methods considering response bias and cognitive strategies. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 675-680
23. Macmillan N.A., and Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide. 2nd ed. (2005), Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey
24. Masuoka S., Hatjopoulos D., and O'Mahony M. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 10 (1995) 295-306
25. Miller J. The sampling distribution of d′. Perception and Psychophysics 58 (1996) 65-72
26. Noreen D.L. Optimal decision rules for some common psychophysical paradigms. Mathematical psychology and psychophysiology. In: Grossberg S. (Ed). Proceedings of the symposium in applied mathematics of the American Mathematical Society and the Society for Industrial Applied Mathematics Vol. 13 (1981), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI 237-279
27. 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. Journal of Sensory Studies 7 (1992) 1-47
28. O'Mahony M. Who told you the triangle test was simple?. Food Quality and Preference 6 (1995) 227-238
29. O'Mahony M., Masuoka S., and Ishii R. A theoretical note on difference tests: models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies 9 (1994) 247-272
30. O'Mahony M., and Rousseau B. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Quality and Preference 14 (2002) 157-164
31. Rousseau B. The β-strategy: An alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 16 (2001) 301-318
32. Rousseau B., Meyer A., and O'Mahony M. Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 13 (1998) 149-173
33. Rousseau B., and O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. Journal of Sensory Studies 12 (1997) 127-146
34. Rousseau B., and O'Mahony M. Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms. Food Quality and Preference 11 (2000) 457-464
35. Rousseau B., and O'Mahony M. Investigation of the dual-pair method as a possible alternative to the triangle and same-different tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 16 (2001) 161-178
36. Rousseau B., Rogeaux M., and O'Mahony M. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation and criteria. Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 173-184
37. Rousseau B., Stroh S., and O'Mahony M. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: effects of memory and response bias. Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 39-45
38. Sorkin R.D. Extensions of the theory of signal detectability to matching procedures in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34 (1962) 1745-1751
39. Stillman J.A. Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance. Perception and Psychophysiology 54 (1993) 190-194
40. Stillman J.A., and Irwin R.J. Advantages of the same-different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. Journal of Sensory Studies 10 (1995) 261-272
41. Swets J.A., Dawes R.M., and Monahan J. Better decisions through science. Scientific American 283 (2000) 82-87
42. Tedja S., Nonaka R., Ennis D.M., and O'Mahony M. Triadic discrimination testing: Refinement of Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis approaches. Chemical Senses 19 (1994) 279-301