Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 119-128

  Bojesen Christensen, Rune Haubo ^a   Lee, Hye Seong ^b   Brockhoff, Per Bruun ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Cumulative link models; Mixed effects models; Power computations; R; Replications

Indexed keywords

EID: 83855162146     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.005     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis 2002, Wiley. 2nd ed.
2. Alfaro Rodriguez H., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:353-361.
3. Alfaro Rodriguez H., O'Mahony M., Angulo O. Paired preference tests: d' values from mexican consumers with various response options. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:275-281.
4. Angulo O., O'Mahony M. The paired preference test and the "no-preference" option: was Odesky correct?. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:425-434.
5. Bi J. Sensory discrimination tests and measurements statistical principles, procedures and tables 2006, Blackwell Publishing.
6. Bi J., Ennis D.M. A Thurstonian variant of the beta-binomial model for replicated difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:461-466.
7. Bi J., Ennis D.M., O'Mahony M. How to estimate and use the variance of d' from difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:87-104.
8. Boyles R.A. The role of likelihood in interval estimation. The American Statistician 2008, 62:22-26.
9. Bradley R.A., Terry M.E. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 1952, 39:324-345.
10. Braun V., Rogeaux M., Schneid N., O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:501-507.
11. Brockhoff P.B. The statistical power of replications in difference tests. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:405-417.
12. Brockhoff P.B., Christensen R.H.B. Thurstonian models for sensory discrimination tests as generalized linear models. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:330-338.
13. Carr, B. T. (1995). Confidence intervals in the analysis of sensory discrimination tests the integration of similarity and difference testing. In Proceedings of the 4th AgroStat (pp. 23-31), Dijon, 7-8 December.
14. Castura J.C. Equivalence testing: A brief review. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:257-258.
15. Chapman K.W., Lawless H.T. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:454-468.
16. Christensen, R. H. B. (2011). Ordinal - regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2011.05-10 http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal.
17. Christensen, R. H. B., & Brockhoff, P. B. (2011b). sensR: An R-package for Thurstonian modelling of discrete sensory data. R package version 1.2.10 http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=sensR.
18. Christensen R.H.B., Brockhoff P.B. Estimation and inference in the same different test. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:514-524.
19. Christensen R.H.B., Cleaver G., Brockhoff P.B. Statistical and Thurstonian models for the A-not A protocol with and without sureness. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:542-549.
20. Christensen, R. H. B., & Brockhoff, P. B. (2011a). Analysis of replicated categorical ratings data from sensory experiments. Food Quality and Preference, in review, London.
21. Coakley C.W., Heise M.A. Versions of the sign test in the presence of ties. Biometrics 1996, 52:1242-1251.
22. 2: A comparative review. International Statistical Review 1989, 57:19-43.
23. Davidson R.R. On extending the Bradley-Terry model to accommodate ties in paired comparison experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1970, 65:317-328.
24. Dorfman D.D., Alf E. Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of signal-detection theory and determination of confidence intervals rating-method data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1969, 6:487-496.
25. Eldén, L., Wittmeyer-Koch, L., & Nielsen, H. B. (2004). Introduction to Numerical Computation - analysis and MATLAB illustrations. Student litterature.
26. Ennis, J. M. (2010). Recommendations for 'no preference' responses. Presentation at the 10th Sensometrics conference, Rotterdam. Retrieved from: http://www.sensometrics2010.nl/resultaat/003-011-Ennis.pdf.
27. Ennis, D. M., & Ennis, J. M. (2011). Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Quality and Preference. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.06.006.
28. Ennis D.M., Bi J. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:389-412.
29. Ennis D.M., Bi J. The Dirichlet-multinomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated ratings. Journal of Sensory Studies 1999, 14:321-345.
30. Fox J. Editorial. R-News 2008, 8:1-2.
31. Gilbert, P. (2011). numDeriv: Accurate Numerical Derivatives. R package version 2010.11-1.
32. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Modeling ordered choices: A primer 2010, Cambridge University Press.
33. Green D.M., Swets J.A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics 1966, John Wiley & Sons.
34. Gridgeman N.T. Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics 1959, 15:382-388.
35. Joe H. Accuracy of Laplace approximation for discrete response mixed models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2008, 52:5066-5074.
36. Kim, M. A., & Lee, H. S. (2010). Maximum likelihood estimation of preferred segments derived from duplicated preference tests combined with the duo-trio discrimination methods. In Proceedings of to the annual meeting of Korean Society of Food Science and Technology. Incheon, Korea.
37. Kim M.A., Lee Y.M., Lee H.S. Comparison of d' estimates produced by three versions of a duo-trio test for discriminating tomato juices with varying salt concentrations: the effect of the number and position of the reference stimulus. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:504-511.
38. Kim H.S., Lee H.S., O'Mahony M., Kim K.O. Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juices and cookies. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:417-438.
39. Kunert J. On repeated difference testing. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:385-391.
40. Kunert J., Meyners M. On the triangle test with replications. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:477-482.
41. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food 1998, Chapman and Hall, London.
42. Lee H.-S., Kim K.O. Difference test sensitivity: Comparison of three versions of the duo-trio method requiring different memory schemes and taste sequences. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:97-102.
43. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory, a user's guide 2005, Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Publishers. 2nd ed.
44. MacRae A.W. Confidence intervals for the triangle test can give assurance that products are similar. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:61-67.
45. McCullagh P. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1980, 42:109-142.
46. McCullagh P., Nelder J. Generalized Linear Models 1989, Chapman & Hall. 2nd ed.
47. Meyners M. Proper and improper use and interpretation of beta-binomial models in the analysis of replicated difference and preference tests. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:741-750.
48. Næs T., Brockhoff P.B., Tomic O. Statistics for sensory and consumer science 2010, John Wiley & sons Ltd.
49. O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and new. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 14:157-164.
50. Pawitan Y. A reminder of the fallability of the Wald statistic: Likelihood explanation. The American Statistician 2000, 54:54-56.
51. Pawitan Y. In all likelihood-statistical modelling and inference using likelihood 2001, Oxford University Press.
52. Putter J. The treatment of ties in some nonparametric tests. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1955, 26:368-386.
53. Rao P.V., Kupper L.L. Ties in paired-comparison experiments: A generalization of the Bradley-Terry model. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1967, 62:194-204.
54. Rayner J.C.W., Best D.J. Modelling ties in the sign test. Biometrics 1999, 55:663-665.
55. R Development Core Team (2010). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing address Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
56. Richardson L.F. The approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of physical problems involving differential equations, with an application to the stresses in a masonry dam. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 1910, 210:307-357.
57. Richardson L.F., Gaunt J.A. The deferred approach to the limit. part i. single lattice. part ii. interpenetrating lattices. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 1927, 226:299-361.
58. Rousseau B., Stroh S., O'Mahony M. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: effects of memory and response bias. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:39-45.
59. Sung Y.-E., Lee H.-S., O'Mahony M., Kim K.-O. Paired preference tests: use of placebo stimuli with liking and buying preferences. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:106-117.
60. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 1927, 34:273-286.
61. Thurstone L.L. Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology 1927, 38:368-389.
62. Thurstone L.L. Three psychological laws. Psychological Review 1927, 34:424-432.