Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 223-231

  Ennis, John M ^a  

^a Institute for Perception   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EFFECT SIZE; PERCEPTUAL NOISE; STATISTICAL EVALUATION; TESTING EFFICIENCY;

EID: 84864799642     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00386.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. BI, J. 2011. Similarity tests using forced-choice methods in terms of Thurstonian discriminal distance, d'. J. Sensory Studies 26(2), 151-157.
2. 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.
3. BI, J., LEE, H.S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2010. d' and variance of d' for four-alternative forced choice (4-AFC). J. Sensory Studies 25(5), 740-750.
4. BOCKENHÖLT, U. 1992. Thurstonian models for partial ranking data. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 43, 31-49.
5. BRAUN, V., ROGEAUX, M., SCHNEID, N., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2004. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Qual. Prefer. 15(6), 501-507.
6. BROCKHOFF, P.B. and CHRISTENSEN, R.H.B. 2010. Thurstonian models for sensory discrimination tests as generalized linear models. Food Qual. Prefer. 21(3), 330-338.
7. CARBONELL, L., SENDRA, J.M., BAYARRI, S., IZQUIERDO, L. and TÁRREGA, A. 2008. Thurstonian scales obtained by transformation of beta distributions. Food Qual. Prefer. 19(4), 407-411.
8. CHRISTENSEN, R.H.B. and BROCKHOFF, P.B. 2009. Estimation and inference in the same-different test. Food Qual. Prefer. 20(7), 514-524.
9. CHRISTENSEN, R.H.B., CLEAVER, G. and BROCKHOFF, P.B. 2011. Statistical and Thurstonian models for the A-not A protocol with and without sureness. Food Qual. Prefer. 22(6), 542-549.
10. CHRISTENSEN, R.H.B., LEE, H.S. and BROCKHOFF, P.B. 2012. Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol. Food Qual. Prefer. 24(1), 119-128.
11. DAVID, H.A. and TRIVEDI, M.C. 1962. Pair, triangle and duo-trio tests (Technical Report 55). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Department of Statistics.
12. DELWICHE, J. and O'MAHONY, M. 1996. Flavour discrimination - an extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Qual. Prefer. 7, 1-5.
13. DESSIRIER, J.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. 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(1), 1-8.
14. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114, 116, 117.
15. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8(4), 353-370.
16. ENNIS, D.M. and MULLEN, K. 1986. A multivariate model for discrimination methods. J. Math. Psychol. 30(2), 206-219.
17. 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.
18. ENNIS, D.M., MULLEN, K. and FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1988. Variants of the method of triads: Unidimensional Thurstonian models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 41, 25-26.
19. ENNIS, D.M., ENNIS, J.M., PALEN, J.J. and LAMPE, R.E. 2008. Confidence bounds for positive ratios of normal variables. Commun. Stat.-Theor. M. 37, 307-317.
20. ENNIS, J.M. and ENNIS, D.M. 2011. Confidence bounds for multiplicative comparisons. Commun. Stat.-Theor. M. 40( 17 ), 3049-3054.
21. ENNIS, J.M. and JESIONKA, V. 2011. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. J. Sensory Studies 26, 371-382.
22. 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. Psychol. 51, 205-215.
23. FIELLER, E.C. 1932. The distribution of the index in a normal bivariate population. Biometrika 24, 428-440.
24. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses 4, 355-358.
25. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1980. Three-stimulus procedures in olfactory psychophysics: An experimental comparison of Thurstone-Ura and three-alternative-forced-choice models of signal detection theory. Percept. Psychophys. 28, 390-397.
26. GARCIA, K., ENNIS, J.M. and PRINYAWIWATKUL, W. 2012. A large-scale experimental comparison of the Tetrad and Triangle tests in children. J. Sensory Studies 27, 217-222.
27. GEARY, R.C. 1930. The frequency distribution of the quotient of two normal variates. J. R. Stat. Soc. 93, 442-446.
28. HACKER, M.J. and RATCLIFF, R. 1979. A revised table of d' for M-alternative forced choice. Percept. Psychophys. 26, 168-170.
29. HAUTUS, M.J., SHEPHERD, D. and PENG, M. 2011a. Decision strategies for the A Not-A, 2AFC and 2AFC-reminder tasks: Empirical tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 22(5), 433-442.
30. HAUTUS, M.J., SHEPHERD, D. and PENG, M. 2011b. Decision strategies for the two-alternative forced choice reminder paradigm. Attention, Percept. Psychophys. 73(3), 729-737.
31. HINKLEY, D.V. 1969. On the ratio of two correlated normal random variables. Biometrika 56, 635-639.
32. ISHII, R., KAWAGUCHI, H., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2007. Relating consumer and trained panels' discriminative sensitivities using vanilla flavored ice cream as a medium. Food Qual. Prefer. 18(1), 89-96.
33. KIM, H., JEON, S.Y., KIM, K.O.K. and O'MAHONY, M. 2006. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance. J. Sensory Studies 21(5), 465-484.
34. KIM, M.A. and LEE, H.S. 2012. Investigation of operationally more powerful duo-trio test protocols: Effects of different reference schemes. Food Qual. Prefer. 25(2), 183-191.
35. 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(3), 464-474.
36. 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. 18(2), 369-383.
37. LEE, H.S., VAN HOUT, D. and HAUTUS, M.J. 2007. 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 Qual. Prefer. 18(6), 920-928.
38. 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(3), 295-306.
39. MCCLURE, S. and LAWLESS, H.T. 2010. Comparison of the triangle and a self-defined two alternative forced choice test. Food Qual. Prefer. 21(5), 547-552.
40. NÆS, T., BROCKHOFF, P.B. and TOMIĆ, O. 2010. Statistics for Sensory and Consumer Science. Wiley, West Sussex, U.K.
41. O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Qual. Prefer. 6(4), 227-238.
42. O'MAHONY, M., MASOUKA, S. and ISHII, R. 1994. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sensory Studies 9(3), 247-272.
43. ROUSSEAU, B. 2001. A Thurstonian model for the dual pair (4IAX) discrimination method. Attention, Percept. Psychophys. 63(6), 1083-1090.
44. ROUSSEAU, B. and O'MAHONY, M. 1997. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sensory Studies 12(2), 127-146.
45. 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(6), 457-464.
46. 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(2), 149-173.
47. ROUSSEAU, B., ROGEAUX, M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1999. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and t criteria. Food Qual. Prefer. 10(3), 173-184.
48. 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(1), 39-45.
49. STILLMAN, J.A. and IRWIN, R.J. 1995. Advantages of the same-different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. J. Sensory Studies 10(3), 261-272.
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(4), 279-301.
51. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.
52. URA, S. 1960. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test. Rep. Statist. Appl. Res. Union Jpn. Sci. Eng. 7, 107-119.
53. VAN HOUT, D., HAUTUS, M.J. and LEE, H. 2011. Investigation of test performance over repeated sessions using signal detection theory: Comparison of three nonattribute-specified difference tests 2-AFCR, A-NOT A and 2-AFC. J. Sensory Studies 26(5), 311-321.